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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the description's additional permission requirement ('Owner/admin only') and scope clarification ('exact current invitation revision', 'invalidate its unused link') add meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It makes the destructive scope precise and explains the idempotency requirement indirectly through the expectedRevision parameter.

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 concise sentences with zero filler. The primary action and its effect are stated first, followed by permission and exclusion. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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, idempotent operation, the description covers permission, scope, and exclusions. It implies the need for the exact revision via 'exact current invitation revision', which is critical for correct usage. It does not mention return values or failure modes, but annotations cover safety and idempotency, making these omissions minor. The description is adequately complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 67% (idempotencyKey and expectedRevision have descriptions, invitationId does not). The description ties expectedRevision to 'exact current invitation revision', adding context beyond the schema. However, it does not describe invitationId or idempotencyKey beyond what the schema already provides. It partially compensates for the missing invitationId description but does not fully fill the gap.

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 clearly states the verb 'revoke', the resource 'workspace invitation', and the specific effect (invalidate unused link). It also explicitly differentiates from removing an already-accepted membership, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_workspace_invitation or workspace_members. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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?

Provides explicit usage conditions: 'Owner/admin only' for permission requirements, and 'Does not remove a membership that has already been accepted' to indicate when not to use it. While it does not name alternative tools, the exclusion is sufficient for an agent to infer the appropriate context. Minor gap: no explicit when-to-use statement, but the permission and exclusion effectively guide selection.

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