revoke_invite

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the authentication requirement (account-wide key) and the irreversible outcome that the invite token becomes unusable. It stops short of noting whether the invite record itself is deleted or retained.

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 that front-load the action and effect. Minor deduction for the stray '[#8a3ee8]' artifact appended to the description, which is noise an agent must ignore.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces — auth requirement and effect. The only gap is what happens to the invite record post-revocation, which is not strictly needed to invoke 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?

Only one parameter (invite_uuid) and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, including its provenance ('from list_invites'). The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (revoke a pending invite) and the concrete effect on the resource (the token can no longer be used). That effect phrasing separates it from accept_invite, resend_invite, and list_invites without needing to name them. It also scopes applicability with '(agency / Enterprise)'.

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?

Gives clear conditions: the invite must be pending, it applies to agency/Enterprise, and an account-wide key is required. It does not name alternatives (e.g. resend_invite when the invite should be re-issued rather than killed), so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.

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