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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds real value on top by stating the authorization requirement and the concrete effect (the invite link stops working). It doesn't say whether the link dies immediately or whether the invitee is notified, which is the remaining behavioral 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?

Three short sentences: effect first, restriction second, where to get the ID third. Nothing is padded and the most decision-relevant information leads.

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, no-output-schema mutation with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the authentication gate and the user-visible consequence. Missing only edge-case detail such as behavior on an already-accepted or expired invitation.

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 each parameter already documents its source, including the idempotency-key retry semantics. The description's line about getting invitation_id from list_workspace_invitations merely restates the schema, adding no new meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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 (revokes) and resource (a pending workspace invitation) plus the outcome (its link stops working). The scope word 'pending' and the pointer to list_workspace_invitations separate it cleanly from list_workspace_invitations and invite_workspace_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?

Gives a clear use condition (only pending invitations) and a prerequisite (owners and admins only), plus how to obtain the required ID. It stops short of naming the closest alternative — remove_workspace_member — for the case of removing an already-joined member, which is the most likely sibling confusion.

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