user_invitation_delete

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

No annotations provided, and the description only says 'Disable instance'. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error conditions for this mutation operation.

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 concise with a single sentence. It includes the tool name, HTTP method, endpoint, and purpose. However, it could be structured with clearer separation of purpose and usage.

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?

Missing context: no output schema, no parameter details, no behavioral notes. For a delete tool, it should state what happens upon success, whether it's reversible, and required authentication.

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 100%, but the description adds no detail beyond what is in the schema ('Requires a JSON request body' is already in the schema description). Does not specify what fields the body should contain.

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 clearly states 'Disable instance of the object' which aligns with deletion, and includes the HTTP method and endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like user_invitation_insert, user_invitation_search, etc.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., user_invitation_update or user_invitation_resend). The only guideline is that it requires a JSON request body, which is basic.

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