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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds non-obvious context: only *pending* invites are affected and existing members are untouched, which clarifies blast radius, plus the owner-only authorization requirement.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then appends prerequisite and scope. No filler.

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 mutation tool whose annotations carry destructive/idempotent semantics, the description covers authorization, scope, and input provenance, so an agent has what it needs. The lingering id vs inviteId ambiguity is the only 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%, so both parameters (id and inviteId) are already documented. The description's 'by id' phrasing slightly muddies which identifier applies since the schema has two id-like params, adding little beyond the schema baseline.

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 (revoke) and resource (pending site invite), plus the scope of what is affected ('existing members stay'). It is clearly distinguishable from invite_site_member and other site tools.

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?

Names the prerequisite (Owner-only) and points to where the id comes from (list_site_members), which tells the agent how to obtain input. It does not, however, contrast against alternatives such as removing a member rather than revoking an invite.

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