Revoke an invite

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of 'board_or_agent' authorization adds some context. However, the description does not disclose side effects (e.g., invite becomes invalid, notifications sent) or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. The description does not contradict 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?

The description is very concise, consisting of three short sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it lacks any structural elements like bullet points or sections, though the brevity itself is not penalized. 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 destructive action with an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It omits context about prerequisites (e.g., invite must exist), the effect of revocation (e.g., invite code invalidated), and the return value. The output schema exists but its contents are not summarized.

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 50% (only the body parameter has a description). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it does not explain how to obtain the inviteId or what the optional body payload is for. The schema's body description is already present, so the description adds no value beyond structured data.

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 title and first sentence clearly state 'Revoke an invite', which is a specific verb ('Revoke') and resource ('invite'). This distinguishes it from siblings like pc_post_invites_by_token_accept (accept invite) and pc_get_companies_by_company_id_invites (list invites).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisite conditions, such as the invite needing to be in a pending state, nor does it clarify that revoking is only applicable to existing invites. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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