delete_asset_group_invite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action ('Cancel/revoke') without revealing side effects, reversibility, or permissions. It does not say whether the invitee is notified, if the action is idempotent, or what happens to associated data. This is minimal disclosure beyond the tool name.

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 is front-loaded with the action and object. It avoids unnecessary words and clearly communicates the core function without padding. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter delete operation, the description is minimally sufficient. However, without annotations, output schema, or any mention of postconditions, the description doesn't fully cover the behavioral context. It adequately names the operation but leaves the agent wondering about idempotency and side effects, so it scores as average.

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 schema has one parameter 'id' with a generic description 'ID of the resource', and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and since the description doesn't compensate with more context, a 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 uses a specific action ('Cancel/revoke') and clearly identifies the resource ('asset group invite'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like create_asset_group_invite, update_asset_group_invite, and list_asset_group_invites, as it is the only one denoting a delete/cancel operation.

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. For example, it doesn't mention that update_asset_group_invite could be used to modify an invite instead of canceling it, nor any preconditions such as the invite being in a cancellable state. The intended usage is only implied by the name and verb.

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