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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the required role (owner/admin), the precise scope of destruction (the invitation link becomes unusable, not the person), and what it deliberately does not do.

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?

Three short sentences: effect first, precondition second, scope exclusion third. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 mutation with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what happens, who may call it, and which sibling to use instead for accepted members.

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%, with both partnerId and inviteId documented inline (including UUID format), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter formats or interactions beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

"Cancels a pending staff invitation so its link can no longer be used" gives a specific verb (cancels), resource (pending staff invitation), and effect (link invalidated). It also explicitly separates itself from revoke_member, so an agent can distinguish it from the nearest sibling without opening a schema.

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?

It states a clear precondition (agency owner or admin) and an explicit when-not: it does not remove anyone who already accepted, and names revoke_member as the tool for that case. It stops short of a full "use this when..." framing for the pending-invite case, but the routing guidance is clear.

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