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 operation only applies to pending invitations and invalidates the acceptance token. It omits auth requirements and what happens to already-accepted invites' records, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then the usage condition. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries 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?

Purpose, trigger, and state constraint are present and no output schema needs explaining, but for a three-parameter mutation tool with zero schema documentation the description says nothing about the parameters or authorization context. Adequate for intent, incomplete for invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden, yet it only alludes to an 'invitation' and 'token' without explaining invitation_id, tenant_id, or the required authorization value. It adds essentially nothing about the three parameters the agent must supply.

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 (revoke) and resource (a pending invitation) plus the concrete effect: the token can no longer be accepted. The 'pending' qualifier and 'accepted invitations cannot be revoked' clause separate it cleanly from accept_invitation, create_invitation, and list_invitations.

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 an explicit when-to-use ('withdraw an invite sent by mistake or no longer needed') and a when-not ('accepted invitations cannot be revoked'). It never names the competing sibling tools directly, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out, keeping it short of a 5.

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