Delete invite

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

Beyond the annotations indicating destructive behavior, the description discloses the crucial two-phase nature: 'the first call changes nothing and returns a preview plus a confirm_token; repeating the call with the token revokes it.' This explains exactly what side effects occur and prevents accidental deletion.

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 a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the action and immediately follows with the essential safety protocol. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description adequately covers the core usage and safety behavior for a destructive tool with no output schema. It explains the preview and confirm_token workflow, but leaves some gaps such as the exact format of the preview, how to pass confirm_token, and the roles of optional parameters like guild and reason. These are secondary to the main destructive-action context.

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?

The schema has only 40% description coverage. The description adds key meaning to confirm_token by explaining its role in the revocation flow, but it does not explicitly clarify dry_run, reason, or the relationship between the first call and dry_run. This partial compensation leaves some parameters underspecified.

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 begins with the specific action 'Revoke an invite link', clearly stating the tool's purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_invite, list_invites, and get_invite, which handle different invite operations.

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 clear context for the safe two-step calling sequence: first call previews and returns a confirm_token, second call with token revokes. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance on how to use the tool effectively is strong and directly addresses the main usage scenario.

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