revokeChatInviteLink

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the authorization requirement, the special behavior for primary links (automatic generation of a new link), the restriction to bot-created links, and the return value type. This is rich, relevant behavioral context for a mutating tool with no annotation safety hints.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: the action, the primary-link edge case, the permission requirement, and the return type. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what will be returned (ChatInviteLink object). It also covers the permission prerequisite, the bot-created-link constraint, and the primary-link regeneration behavior. For a two-parameter tool, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 chat_id and invite_link are already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail, but it also does not need to; this is the correct baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Revoke' and the resource 'invite link', immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like createChatInviteLink, editChatInviteLink, and exportChatInviteLink. It further clarifies scope by specifying 'created by the bot', leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 gives clear context: this is for revoking a bot-created invite link, and it states the prerequisite that the bot must be an administrator with can_invite_users rights. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the revoke-vs-create/edit distinction is strongly implied through the wording and sibling names.

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