update_team_invitation_role

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates a role but does not describe potential side effects (e.g., whether the invitation is re-sent), error conditions (e.g., if the invitation is already accepted), or the return value. For a mutation tool, this lack of context is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It directly conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although the schema fully covers parameters, the description lacks essential behavioral context for a mutation tool: there is no output schema, no mention of return values, error handling, or prerequisites. The 'pending invitation' scope is helpful but insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (teamId, email, role) with 100% coverage, including an enum for role. The description adds the 'pending' context, but this is not per-parameter detail. Thus, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (update), the resource (role of a pending team invitation), and the identifier (by email). It distinguishes this tool from update_team_member_role by specifying 'pending team invitation' rather than a team member.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'pending team invitation' provides clear context that this tool is for invitations that have not yet been accepted, differentiating it from update_team_member_role which targets existing team members. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools for other scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.