Revoke team invite

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, destructive operation. The description adds the 'pending' scoping constraint, clarifying only pending invites can be revoked. However, it doesn't disclose whether the action is reversible, whether permissions are required, or what happens to the invitee relationship. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 concise sentence that states the verb, resource, and state (pending). Zero wasted words, appropriately short for a straightforward revocation tool.

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 tool (destructiveHint=true) with 3 params and no output schema, the description is minimal. The 'pending' qualifier and state constraint are useful, but it doesn't disclose edge cases (e.g., what happens if invite already accepted or expired), permissions needed, or side effects. The annotation flags destructiveness, which helps, but for a tool with potentially irreversible effects, more behavioral context would benefit the agent.

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 67%, and the schema already documents invite_id and project_id with their patterns and descriptions. The third parameter, idempotency_key, has no description in the schema and the tool description doesn't explain it either—the agent would have to guess its purpose. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. With partial coverage, the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented idempotency_key.

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 'Revoke a pending project team invite' uses a specific verb (revoke) and resource (pending project team invite), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_team_invite, resend_team_invite, and list_team_invites. It could be more specific about scope, but the verb+resource pairing is clear and differentiated.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as resend_team_invite, remove_team_member, or how it differs from deleting an active membership. It states it operates on 'pending' invites, which implies the target must be in a pending state, but there are no explicit preconditions, no mention of when not to use it, and no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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