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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value: it specifies what is actually destroyed ('the open invitation ... its link stops working') and adds a consent requirement ('Ask the merchant'), neither of which is expressible in the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded and short, but the first two sentences restate the same action ('Withdraw your client's open invitation' / 'Withdraws the open invitation of one managed business'), which is redundant rather than additive. The caution sentence earns its place; the duplication does not.

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?

For a two-parameter revoke tool with no output schema and annotations that carry the safety profile, the description covers the action, its consequence, and the consent prerequisite. It is essentially complete, with only the lack of alternative-tool routing as a gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, default, or interaction detail for 'id' or 'business' beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Withdraw your client's open invitation') and clarifies the effect ('so its link stops working'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling agenta_businesses_invite. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 instruction 'Ask the merchant before calling this' gives a real prerequisite/caution, which implies the operational context. But it never states when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., re-inviting via agenta_businesses_invite) or any exclusion conditions, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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