todoist_invitation_delete

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action is 'Delete/revoke', which implies destructive behavior. The description is straightforward and discloses the essential behavior without contradiction.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately provide usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what, when, and which invitation. It is contextually complete.

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% and the description adds context beyond the schema: it clarifies that the invitation must be one sent by the user and that it must be pending. This additional meaning helps the agent correctly identify the parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the tool deletes/revokes pending invitations sent by the user, using specific verb 'Delete/revoke' and resource 'pending invitation'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like accept and reject by specifying 'invitation that you sent' and 'before it is accepted'.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to cancel an invitation before it is accepted', providing clear context for when to use the tool. While it doesn't name alternatives, the guidance is sufficient to differentiate from accept/reject.

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