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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only pending invitations are revocable and that it returns the updated invitation summary with status revoked. These are key behavioral details. It does not mention error handling or side effects beyond the operation, but for a simple revoke tool this is adequate.

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?

The description is four short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then setup steps, then constraints and return value. There is no fluff; every sentence adds essential information, including the token cost, which is useful context.

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 tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the prerequisite call, account selection, a critical precondition (only pending), and the return value. It does not discuss failure scenarios or permissions, but these are not essential given the simplicity and the existing schema. Slightly more detail on error behavior would push it to 5.

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 the schema already describes all three parameters clearly. The description reinforces the use of clerk_instance_id (target a specific connection vs. default), but this adds only marginal value beyond the schema, which already states 'Omit to use the default connected account'. The baseline of 3 is 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?

The description starts with a specific verb 'Revoke' and a specific resource 'pending Clerk organization invitation', clearly stating the action and scope. It distinguishes from the sibling tool clerk.revoke_invitation by specifying 'organization' invitation, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives explicit preconditions and steps: call clerk.get_connected_accounts first, and explains how to select a connection via clerk_instance_id (including when to omit). It also notes that only pending invitations can be revoked. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other invitation types (e.g., clerk.revoke_invitation), so it lacks a direct exclusion.

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