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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the token becomes unusable and recommending verification through company_list_team after an uncertain response.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with the main action and effect front-loaded. Every clause contributes either to the action's purpose or to post-call verification.

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 but idempotent revoke operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the effect and gives a recovery/verification path. It could say more about permissions or expected response behavior, but annotations carry much of that burden.

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%, so both accountId and invitationId are already documented with precise ID constraints. The description adds only implied context that the invitation should be pending, but no parameter-level 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?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Revoke,' and a specific resource, 'pending Agency team invitation,' and states the effect that the invitation token can no longer be accepted. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as company_resend_invitation or company_accept_invitation.

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?

The description implies the tool applies to pending invitations and gives one useful post-call instruction: inspect company_list_team after an uncertain response. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose revocation over alternatives like resending or accepting an invitation, so usage guidance is only minimally viable.

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