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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description builds on that by disclosing idempotency, the exact user-visible consequence (link becomes inactive), and the two-step confirmation flow ('May return needs_confirmation'), which pairs with the approvalId parameter. This is behavior an agent cannot infer from 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?

Front-loaded with the core effect, then triggers, then operational notes (idempotency, id source, confirmation). Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 revoke tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect, the trigger cases, idempotency, where ids come from, and the confirmation round-trip. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 the schema already documents all three fields; the baseline would be 3. The description adds useful provenance for interviewId ('Ids come from compass_interviews_list') and ties the needs_confirmation return to the approvalId field, giving extra value over the schema.

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an interview's invite link') and even describes the observable effect ('the guest's next visit sees that the link is no longer active'). An agent can distinguish this from the invite-creating sibling without opening any 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?

Gives three concrete trigger scenarios — wrong recipient, changed mind, leaked link — which is strong positive guidance. It stops short of naming the explicit alternative (e.g. re-inviting via compass_interview_invite) or a when-not case, so it lands just below the top tier.

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