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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value by pinpointing that 'delete' specifically is the destructive action rather than the update path. It does not disclose side effects of update (e.g., notification behavior) or permission requirements, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with the write scope, the destructive action, and the read alternative all front-loaded and free of 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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers routing and the destructive path, and the fully described schema carries the parameter burden. It omits the `describe` action and any indication of required combinations per action, leaving a small completeness 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 description coverage is 100% and three parameters carry enums, so the schema fully documents action, entity_type, new_state, expires, and the rest. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the action names, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Names a specific resource (workspace and share invitations) with concrete write verbs (update, revoke) and explicitly marks delete as the destructive path. It also draws a clean boundary against the `invitation` sibling, which handles reads, so an agent can route 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?

Explicitly routes read operations to `invitation`, which is exactly the alternative-selection guidance an agent needs for this family. It stops short of stating preconditions (required IDs, entity_type/entity_id matching, permissions needed), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not coverage.

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