Revoke Micro project invitation

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

The annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful scope context ('one exact', 'pending', 'before it is accepted') beyond the annotations, but it does not discuss consequences, irreversibility, or behavior when the invitation is already accepted.

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, tightly worded sentence. Every phrase adds relevant information: 'one exact' prevents bulk-revoke assumptions, 'pending project invitation' scopes the target, and 'before it is accepted' sets the state precondition. There is 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 destructive, low-complexity tool with one required identifier plus a confirmation flag, the description covers the essential state precondition and scope. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's responsibility. It falls slightly short of a 5 because it does not mention what happens after revocation or how failures for accepted invitations are surfaced.

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 67%, and the description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. The confirm and path parameters already have property descriptions, while invitationId is covered by format and pattern constraints. The phrase 'one exact' hints at the invitationId parameter but does not provide meaningful additional guidance.

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 a specific action ('revoke'), a precise object ('one exact pending project invitation'), and the timing constraint ('before it is accepted'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like micro_invitation_create or micro_invitations without requiring the agent to infer the tool's purpose.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: it applies to a pending project invitation that has not yet been accepted. It gives an implicit when-not condition ('before it is accepted'), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for accepted invitations or other revoke-like operations such as micro_member_remove.

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