Cancel an invitation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the concrete consequence (invite link stops working), the mandatory confirmationToken gate via preview_operation, and the auth requirements — context the annotations cannot express.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying operational weight: effect, id discovery, confirmation procedure, and permissions. The destructive consequence is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, prerequisites, the required confirmation handshake, and authorization — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate: it explains that confirmationToken comes from preview_operation's returned plan and that invitationId is obtained from list_members/includeInvitations. requestId's idempotency semantics are covered by the schema; organizationId remains unexplained but is self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a pending invitation') and immediately gives the observable effect ('its link stops working'), which distinguishes it from siblings like archive_organization or delete_cluster that also remove things but in different ways.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: find ids via list_members with includeInvitations, and mandates the preview_operation confirmation flow before calling. It also states the required permission (organization:manage) and role (owner), naming both the precondition and the tool sequence.

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