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 two things annotations do not: an authorization requirement (administrator) and a state constraint (only pending invitations). It still omits what happens to the invitee or the failure mode for non-pending tokens.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the permission constraint immediately after. 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?

For a one-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is revoked, by what identifier, and who may do it. Only the post-condition (does the invite link immediately become invalid?) is left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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 100% for the single 'token' parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. 'By its token' only confirms that the token uniquely identifies the invitation, adding no format or sourcing detail 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?

Specific verb + resource ('Revoke a pending invitation') with a clear identifier ('by its token'), which separates it from create_invitation and list_invitations. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby revoke_share_link, but the resource noun 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?

'Administrator only' gives a real precondition, and 'pending' implies state scoping. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over revoke_share_link or what to do if the invitation is already accepted/expired, leaving usage inference to the agent.

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