Delete user invite

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds concrete consequence detail beyond the annotations: the deletion is irreversible and the invite link stops working, which tells the agent exactly what is destroyed. It stops short of noting error behavior for an unknown inviteId.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the consequence. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly complete: the action, its irreversibility, and the effect on the invite link are all stated. Only minor gaps remain (behavior on a stale/already-deleted ID, permission requirements).

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% for the single inviteId parameter, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about the parameter format or source (e.g., from list_user_invites), so the baseline 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 and resource (delete a user invite) so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling tailscale_delete_device_invite, which the agent must disambiguate by name alone.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions the alternatives (list_user_invites, get_user_invite, resend_user_invite) that would precede or replace this call. Only the warning about irreversibility hints at caution.

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