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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true/readOnlyHint=false annotations, the description discloses idempotency, the exact user-visible consequence of revocation, and the `needs_confirmation` approval flow. These are meaningful behavioral traits an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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, front-loaded with the action and effect before usage triggers and edge behaviors. No filler; every clause adds information.

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 destructive single-object mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, idempotency, id provenance, and the confirmation follow-up path. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so interviewId, workspace, and approvalId are already documented. The description only restates the interviewId source already present in the schema, so with the schema carrying the load a baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Kills an interview's invite link') plus the concrete effect ('the guest's next visit sees that the link is no longer active'). This clearly separates it from the sibling compass_interview_invite, which creates invites rather than revoking them.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: wrong recipient, changed mind, or leaked link. It covers when to use but does not name a contrasting alternative or state when-not to use (e.g., a different tool for regenerating vs. fully revoking).

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