Revoke an invitation

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing irreversibility ('cannot be un-revoked') and a user-confirmation requirement, which the destructiveHint/idempotentHint flags alone do not convey. This is exactly the extra context that raises confidence for a destructive, open-world mutation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the confirmation caution, then the irreversibility consequence, then the id-lookup pointer. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description fills the remaining gaps: irreversibility, confirmation, and how to obtain the required id. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, and the enum values for 'kind' are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a minor provenance pointer ('from invite_list') but no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Cancels a real outstanding invitation on the user's tailnet.' This clearly identifies the action and scope, distinguishing it from the many other revoke/list siblings (guest_revoke, people_revoke, invite_list) without opening either 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?

Explicitly instructs to 'confirm with the user before calling this' and directs the agent to 'Use invite_list to find the id,' covering both the caution and the precondition. It also states the alternative for reversing course ('issue a new one instead'), so when/when-not is fully specified.

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