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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive/not idempotent) by disclosing concrete side effects: the email link stops working, no notification email is sent, and only pending invites are eligible. It also explains that re-inviting requires a new call, which the annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences, all front-loaded and free of filler, with the core action first and caveats after. Slightly dense with parenthetical cross-references, but every clause carries routing or behavioral 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?

For a single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, it fully covers eligibility constraints, side effects, unavailable alternatives, and the re-invite path. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% and already documents the id as a UUID from list_invite_requests, so the description's restatement adds little. Basline would be 3, but referencing the discovery tool in prose gives marginal routing value.

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) with the qualifying state front-loaded. It cites list_invite_requests as the source of the id, so an agent can distinguish it from create_invite_request and list_invite_requests at a glance.

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?

Explicitly names when not to use it: accepted invitations are now user access and cannot be revoked via MCP, directing the agent to the DIDWW panel. It also points to list_invite_requests for discovery and create_invite_request for re-inviting, covering the full decision path.

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