cancel_invite

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

The destructive nature is already fully declared by annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the repeated "DESTRUCTIVE: this cannot be undone" lines add no information beyond structured data. The genuinely additive content is the `team:write` scope requirement, which is real behavioral context not present in annotations. Idempotency is asserted in annotations but never explained, and the description is silent on what happens if the invite is already accepted or expired.

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 core intent is front-loaded, which is good, but the destructive warning is duplicated verbatim in two separate places, wasting a line on content the annotations already carry. Splitting the scope requirement into its own paragraph is fine, but the overall body is padded rather than efficient.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, an agent still lacks the id's provenance, the result of a successful call, and the error behavior for non-pending invites. The scope requirement partially offsets this, but the definition is not complete enough to invoke confidently without guessing.

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 single `id` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it at all — it does not say the id is an invite id, where to obtain one (e.g. from list_invites), or what format it takes. With coverage this low, the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource ("Cancel a pending invite") and the qualifier "pending" scopes it meaningfully. It does not name or distinguish itself from the relevant siblings (create_invite, list_invites, remove_member), so the agent must infer the boundary from the resource name alone.

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?

"Only call it when the user explicitly asked for exactly this action" is an explicit negative usage condition, which is stronger than most tools provide. However, it never names the alternatives (create_invite to re-issue, list_invites to find the id) or explains handling of invites already accepted or expired.

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