Revoke an invite link

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true) and open-world (openWorldHint: true). The description adds the 'permanently' and 'previously generated' qualifiers, which clarifies the irreversibility and the requirement that the link must exist, but does not elaborate on side effects or consequences.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and object.

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 tool with no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: no explanation of the peer parameter, no outcome expectations, and no cautionary context. The brevity comes at the expense of completeness.

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?

The description does not explain any parameters. Schema coverage is only 33% (only 'link' has a description), and the description fails to clarify 'peer' or 'accountId'. The agent receives no semantic help from the description.

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 the action: 'Permanently revoke a previously generated invite link.' It uses a specific verb (revoke) and resource (invite link), and the scope ('previously generated') distinguishes it from create_invite_link and list_invite_links among the siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or contexts. It simply defines the action, leaving the agent to infer when to invoke it.

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