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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description goes beyond the boolean by spelling out the retry semantics (same idempotency_key returns the original result) and the concrete consequence of the revocation, which adds real value over the annotation flags.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, with the idempotency note following. No filler or redundancy.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and sparse parameter coverage, the description covers the effect and idempotency but omits permission/auth requirements and the workspaceId vs workspace_id ambiguity, leaving notable gaps.

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 only 33% with 6 parameters, and the description clarifies only idempotency_key's retry behavior. It ignores invitation_id and does nothing to disambiguate the similarly named workspaceId and workspace_id parameters, leaving the agent to guess.

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 workspace invitation) plus the effect (can no longer be accepted). The 'pending' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling member-management tools like aidelly_remove_workspace_member and aidelly_invite_workspace_member.

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?

Usage is implied by the action and the 'pending' state, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must infer the context from the verb alone.

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