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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully specifies the concrete effect (the invite link stops working), but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the invite was already accepted.

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 tight sentence with the verb and the consequence front-loaded; no filler or redundancy.

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, annotation-covered mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and effect. It omits the approval retry flow (covered in the schema) and edge cases like already-accepted invites, but nothing essential to calling it is missing.

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% — both 'invite' (id or email) and 'approval' (approval ID after approval_required) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 invite) and even the observable effect (the link stops working). The word 'pending' scopes it away from member-removal siblings like org_member_rm, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 qualifier 'pending invite' implies the condition under which this tool applies (not accepted invites, not existing members), which is implicit usage guidance. However, no explicit when-to-use note or alternative (e.g. org_member_rm for accepted members, org_invite_ls to find the invite) is offered.

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