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

Beyond the single idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses the auth requirement (login plus OWNER/ADMIN), the failure mode and its error code for non-pending invites, the idempotency of repeated revokes, and the irreversible side effect that a push the recipient already received cannot be recalled. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before performing a destructive state change.

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 front-loaded with the permission/auth tag, then the action, then the confirmation rule, the workflow, the error states, and the side effect. Every clause carries new information, with no repetition or 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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers preconditions, authorization, error behavior, idempotency, and user-visible side effects. Nothing an agent needs in order to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds provenance for inviteId (obtained from list_organization_member_invites), which is real meaning beyond the schema, though organizationId gets no extra context.

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 (撤回/revoke a 点名邀请 that has not yet been responded to) and immediately narrows the scope: the invitee can no longer accept it. It also names the companion list_organization_member_invites tool that supplies inviteId, so the agent can tell it apart from respond_organization_invite and the other organization-invite siblings.

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 an explicit precondition (the invite must still be unanswered), an explicit exclusion list (accepted, declined, and expired invites cannot be revoked and raise organization_member_invite_unavailable), and a required step before calling (confirm with the user which person). It also points to list_organization_member_invites as the way to obtain inviteId.

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