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

The description aligns with the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) and adds a useful consequence ('the link stops working'). With annotations already covering the write/destructive nature, the description contributes only a modest extra detail, not a deep behavioral profile.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, object, and effect with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. Any missing details (like return value) are handled by the output schema, and the intent is clear.

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?

The schema fully describes inviteId with its purpose and sources, so the description adds no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema coverage is 100%.

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 states a clear verb ('Withdraws'), a specific resource ('a pending invite'), and the resulting effect ('the link stops working'). This distinguishes it from the related invite_member and remove_member tools without ambiguity.

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 clearly targets 'pending invite' and explains the consequence, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like remove_member or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full exclusion.

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