Revoke invitation

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the destructive nature. The description adds the authorization requirement (ADMIN/OWNER), which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Revoke an invitation by id. Requires ADMIN/OWNER.' Every word contributes necessary information, with no redundancy or 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 simple revocation tool, the description is adequately complete. The annotation covers destructive behavior, and the description adds the required role. It could be improved by explicitly clarifying that it is for invitations sent by the user, but overall it is sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (invitation_id, board_id, board_slug). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Revoke an invitation by id', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'decline_board_invitation' by focusing on the revoke action, and the 'by id' clarifies the target.

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 the permission context 'Requires ADMIN/OWNER', which gives a clear usage condition. However, it does not mention alternatives (e.g., decline_board_invitation for invitations you received) or any exclusions, so the guidance is only implied.

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