Revoke a pending invitation

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints, particularly the OWNER role requirement and the caveat that revoking has no effect on users who have already joined. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the role requirement and then the alternative tool for the related but different case. Every sentence 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 two-parameter action with no output schema, the description, schema, and annotations together cover what the agent needs: purpose, role requirement, relevant edge case, parameter details, idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The only minor omission is a description of the response behavior after revocation, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Withdraw a pending invitation so it can no longer be accepted.' It also differentiates the tool from remove_member, so an agent can clearly identify when this tool applies versus a sibling.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool (for pending invitations) and when not to use it ('Has no effect on someone who has already joined — use remove_member for that'). It also states the OWNER role requirement, giving the agent clear authorization guidance.

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