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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context the schema doesn't have: the operation requires owner/admin rights and the effect is immediate ('now'). It does not say what happens to the invited party, whether the invite link is invalidated everywhere, or whether prior invites can be re-sent.

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?

One compact sentence with the authorization constraint front-loaded and the ID source appended. No wasted words, though the fragment style borders on terse given the missing parameter detail.

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 tool with no output schema, the definition covers authorization and immediacy, which is the most important part. It remains incomplete on the 'group' parameter's format and on the post-revocation state, which an agent would need to confirm the action succeeded and to avoid malformed calls.

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% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'invite' is an invite id sourced from groups_mine, but leaves 'group' completely undefined (name, id, or slug?) and doesn't state whether the invite must belong to that group or what happens on mismatch.

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 names a specific action (end/revoke an invite) on a specific resource, and the parenthetical 'invite id from groups_mine' distinguishes it from group_invite_create and group_invite_info. 'End' is slightly euphemistic for revoke, but combined with the tool name the intent is unambiguous.

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?

'Owner or admin' gives a prerequisite role, and pointing at groups_mine as the source of the invite id tells the agent how to obtain the required input. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to adjacent tools like group_remove, channel_invite, or permission_revoke, so the agent must infer that this only applies to outstanding invitations.

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