invites_delete

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

The annotation destructiveHint is true, but the description adds crucial context: irreversibility, the exact return shape `{deleted, code}`, and the explicit requirement to pass `__confirm:true` and set `MCP_DRY_RUN=false` to actually delete. This goes well beyond the annotations and equips the agent with the safety mechanism.

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 well-structured with bold section headers, front-loaded purpose and warning, and zero filler. Every sentence conveys necessary information for safe and correct invocation. It remains compact despite covering usage, safety, and return behavior.

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?

Given the complex destructive nature, the description covers purpose, when/not to use, irreversibility, confirmation requirement, and return shape. Combined with rich annotations and complete schema, there are no significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds behavioral semantics for `__confirm` by specifying the required value and its interaction with MCP_DRY_RUN, which is not in the schema. This enhances the agent's understanding of how to activate the destructive operation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Revoke a Discord invite by code.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling invite tools like invites_create_channel or invites_get. The warning 'DESTRUCTIVE - IRREVERSIBLE' further reinforces the action's nature.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections provide clear context. It advises creating a new invite before deleting the old one when rotation is needed, naming an actionable alternative. This is precisely the guidance needed for an agent to decide correctly.

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