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

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: that accepted/declined invites are refused, that revoking one side of a linked pair also revokes the other, and that previously-accepted access is retained. Annotations already show destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds crucial nuance about side effects and edge cases.

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?

Three sentences, each dense with critical information. No fluff. The most important behavioral notes (what happens when accepted/declined) are front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

Comprehensive for a two-parameter tool with no output schema. Covers acceptance states, cross-revocation, access retention, and permission requirements. No missing pieces an agent would need to decide correctness.

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 schema already describes both parameters (id and team_id) with high coverage (100%). The description confirms the id accepts either type and adds context on team_id's fallback behavior (already in schema). It adds marginal value by reinforcing the dual-type acceptance.

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 invitation'), and clearly specifies the two types it accepts (team invitation or Clarity process invitation). The distinction from siblings like deleteClarityProcessInviteLink and deleteTeamInviteLink is implicit but clear due to the 'pending invitation' framing.

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 states when to use: for revoking pending invitations, and distinguishes behavior for accepted/declined invitations (refused with 409). It implies the alternative is createTeamInvite or bulkCreateTeamInvites, and notes the dual-sided revocation. No exclusions needed because it is a targeted delete operation.

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