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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description adds the actual effect on the outside world (the emailed link stops working) and the authorization requirement, which annotations cannot express. It leaves out what happens on a repeat call, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

A single sentence with the effect front-loaded, the sibling reference tucked into a parenthetical, and the permission constraint last. Nothing is wasted.

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, the description covers effect, permission, and how to source the ID. Only the failure modes (non-pending invite, repeat call) are unaddressed, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 50%: project_id is documented, invite_id is not. The description only indirectly explains invite_id via the dosai_list_invites pointer and says nothing about project scoping or the UUID format, so it neither fully compensates nor adds much beyond the schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Withdraw') on a specific resource ('a pending invitation') and states the observable consequence ('the link in the email stops working'). The parenthetical reference to dosai_list_invites separates it from the read-only sibling and from dosai_invite_member, so an agent can pick it without opening a 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?

Scopes usage to 'pending' invitations and points at dosai_list_invites as the way to obtain one, plus the 'Admin or owner' permission gate. It doesn't address the edge cases (already-accepted or expired invites, or how it differs from dosai_remove_member), but the context is clear.

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