Revoke an invite

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds the non-obvious fact that this destructive write has no server-side dry run and is intercepted client-side by confirm. That is meaningful context beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about reversibility or required permissions.

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 endpoint, followed immediately by the write-safety constraint. Nothing is padded or restated.

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 destructive three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: endpoint, confirm gating, and the absence of a server-side dry run, including what happens without confirm (a request preview is returned). Only error behavior, permissions, and permanence of the revocation are unaddressed.

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?

At 67% schema coverage, the confirm and idempotencyKey parameters are already documented in the schema and the description only restates the confirm gate. The required id parameter carries no description in the schema; the endpoint template /v1/invites/{id} implies it is the invite identifier, which is useful but thin compensation.

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) and resource (an invite) and pins it to the exact endpoint DELETE /v1/invites/{id}. The resource name alone separates it from invites_list, invites_create, and invites_preview in the sibling set, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 a hard invocation condition (confirm: true or nothing is executed), which is real usage guidance, but it never contrasts the tool with invites_preview or explains when revoking is the right action versus simply letting an invite expire. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

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