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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and readOnly=false; the description adds two traits annotations cannot express: the owner-only permission requirement and the blast radius (existing members stay). It does not say whether revocation is reversible or what a success response looks like.

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 covering action, identifier, provenance, and permission with no wasted words.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the target, the id source, and the authorization constraint.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description earns above baseline by tying the invite_id to its source (list_site_members), clarifying which of the two ids is being revoked despite the terse 'by id' phrasing.

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 a pending invite) with scope (pending only, by id). An agent can distinguish it from invite_site_member and delete_site without opening either schema.

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?

Tells the agent where the id comes from (list_site_members) and adds an eligibility condition (owner-only). It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of a 5.

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