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

Annotations confirm destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, aligning with the 'revoke' action. The description adds the key detail that the invitation must be 'pending,' which is important for correct usage. However, it does not discuss side effects or idempotency implications beyond what annotations already provide.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core action. It is concise and front-loaded but lacks additional structure (e.g., bullet points or sections) that could improve readability without increasing length significantly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, destructive behavior), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the effect on the invitation, the need for idempotency, or error conditions. Annotations partially fill the gap, but the description alone is too sparse for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description offers no parameter-level details. It does not clarify the role of 'idempotency_key,' 'brand_id,' or the relationship between 'workspaceId' and 'workspace_id.' The schema itself includes a description for 'workspace_id' but the tool description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 specifies the HTTP method and endpoint pattern 'DELETE /workspaces/{workspaceId}/invitations' and clearly states the action 'revoke a pending workspace invitation.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'aidelly_invite_workspace_member' (create invitation) and 'aidelly_remove_workspace_member' (remove member), making the purpose 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., invitation must be pending), and no scenarios where it should be avoided. Without this context, an agent may misuse the tool.

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