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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the owner-only permission requirement, immediate effect, that it does NOT remove existing members, and post-revocation behavior for anyone opening the stale link. That is the full behavioral picture an agent needs for a destructive mutation.

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 critical 'Owner only' constraint and appropriately sized for a destructive tool. The metaphorical 'stop the bleeding' phrase is slightly florid but does not obscure the meaning, and every sentence carries a distinct fact.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers everything needed: auth requirement, effect, exclusions, parameter sourcing, and downstream consequences. Nothing an agent must know before invoking this tool 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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by telling the agent where to obtain invite_id ('Get invite_id from list_members ... invite_teammate also returns it once, at creation'), which is more actionable than the schema's terse property note.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Make one unexpired invitation link stop working immediately') and explicitly scopes it apart from sibling remove_member and revoke_share_link. An agent can distinguish it from the other revoke_* tools 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 gives the precondition ('Owner only'), the scenario that selects it ('forwarded somewhere it should not go'), and names the alternative for the closely-related case ('People who already joined through it are NOT removed; that is remove_member'). The word 'unexpired' also implicitly tells the agent not to bother with expired links.

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