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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the immediate destructive effect ('link stops working at once'), the permission requirements ('Owner only. Needs admin.'), and that it is free. It stops short of explaining reversibility, invalid-invite behavior, or rate limits, but covers the critical traits for a revocation tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then permissions, then the API equivalence. Every sentence adds useful information with zero waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a two-parameter revocation tool with no annotations, the description covers action, immediacy, authorization, cost, and endpoint equivalence. Minor gaps remain around invalid invite handling and parameter usage, but the definition is largely complete.

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 50%: invite_id has a brief pointer ('from get_team invites'), but api_key is undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented api_key and does not clarify invite_id sourcing beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Revoke an open invite') and immediately names the concrete effect ('its link stops working at once'). This clearly distinguishes it from accept_team_invite, view_team_invite, and invite_to_team without needing their schemas.

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 eligibility constraints ('Owner only. Needs admin.') but does not say when to choose this over siblings like view_team_invite or remove_team_member, nor does it state any exclusions or error conditions. Usage context is implied by the description rather than explicitly guided.

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