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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds context beyond them: login and OWNER/ADMIN role requirement, the specific error code organization_member_invite_unavailable for unrevocable states, and the caveat that the already-sent push notification cannot be recalled. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the auth/role gate and core action, then organized into labeled sections (组合链, 口径/坑). Dense but every line earns its place with no 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 destructive, permission-gated mutation with no output schema, the definition covers auth, workflow chain, failure modes, idempotency, and side-effect limitations. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (organizationId, inviteId) are self-documenting id fields, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds where inviteId comes from (list_organization_member_invites), which is useful workflow context but is captured under usage rather than adding param-level semantics. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (撤回一条还没回应的点名邀请) and its effect (对方就接受不了了), distinguishing it from the sibling list_organization_member_invites which it explicitly names as the ID source. An agent can identify exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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 the precondition (invite not yet responded to), the workflow chain (list_organization_member_invites → this tool), the exclusions (accepted/declined/expired cannot be revoked), and a confirmation requirement before invoking. Both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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