delete_invite

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies that an existing code stops working. It does not say whether the action is reversible, whether members who already joined are affected, what error results from an invalid code, or what permissions are required for a destructive operation.

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 single short sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but here brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficiency. There is nothing superfluous, yet also nothing that earns its place beyond the name.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, and the description fills none of those gaps. An agent cannot determine from this definition what to pass, what permission it needs, or what the effect will be.

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 0% for two parameters, and the description explains neither of them. The required `code` (presumably the invite code to revoke) and the optional `reason` (presumably an audit-log justification) are left entirely undefined.

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?

"Revoga um convite" gives a verb (revoke) and resource (invite), which is slightly more specific than the tool name delete_invite, but it is effectively a restatement of the name and offers no distinguishing detail against siblings like list_invites or create_invite. It is also written in a different language than the tool names and every sibling, with no explanation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_invites (to obtain a code) or create_invite, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing manage-guild permission or having a valid invite code. The agent must infer all routing on its own.

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