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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the prerequisite, the pending-only constraint, and the 5-token cost, but does not state whether revocation is irreversible or what happens for already-revoked invitations, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, prerequisite, target selection, constraint, and cost. It is front-loaded with the action and contains 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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. The description covers purpose, prerequisites, target selection, and a key validity constraint. It omits error handling or irreversibility, but for a simple revoke action with two parameters, it is largely sufficient.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters, and the description reinforces this by restating the clerk_instance_id default behavior. It adds the explicit call order (get_connected_accounts first), which is extra value beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Revoke a pending application invitation by invitation id.' It distinguishes from sibling revoke_organization_invitation by specifying 'application invitation' and adds the 'pending' constraint.

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?

It instructs to 'Call clerk.get_connected_accounts first' and explains how to use clerk_instance_id, providing clear context for execution. It does not explicitly mention alternatives but the 'Only pending invitations can be revoked' serves as a usage constraint.

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