delete_invite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It conveys the destructive/irreversible nature ('can no longer be used') and the audit-log purpose of the reason param is visible in the schema, but it says nothing about required permissions, who may revoke, or permanence of the effect.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the outcome is stated immediately after the action.

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 simple two-parameter delete operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The only gap is the absence of annotation coverage for permissions/safety, which it does not compensate for.

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 100%, so both parameters (inviteCode with example format, reason as audit-log reason) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 (revoke/delete) and resource (invite link) and adds the consequence ('so it can no longer be used'), which clearly distinguishes it from the create_invite, list_invites, and get_invite_details siblings.

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 implies the general use case of revoking an invite, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer context entirely.

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