revoke_invite_code

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'revoke and regenerate' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., existing invite links become invalid), permissions needed, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentence that includes the key action and resource. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from structured information (e.g., bullet points) for complex scenarios.

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?

Despite a simple input schema, the description lacks necessary usage context for a mutation tool. No output schema exists, and the description does not hint at return values or errors. This leaves an agent without full understanding of the tool's effect.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (groupJid, instanceName) adequately. The description adds no new semantic details beyond those in the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Revoke and regenerate') and clearly identifies the resource ('a group's invite code'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like fetch_invite_code (read) or accept_invite_code (join).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or intended scenarios. The description lacks contextual hints about irreversible nature or when one might need to revoke a code.

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