Resend Partner Ownership Invitation

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

The description claims to 'revoke' a link, which is a destructive action, but annotations set destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, the description does not provide details about side effects, permissions required, or whether the action is reversible.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded but insufficient for full understanding. Every word contributes to the core action, but it omits usage context and parameter clarification.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown) and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain when to use it, the meaning of the owner_email parameter, or the behavioral implications of the revoke action. The annotation contradiction further undermines completeness.

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 input schema has 67% coverage (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The critical parameter 'owner_email' lacks a description in both schema and tool description. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the incomplete schema documentation.

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 the action: revoke and resend a new single-use link. The verb 'revoke' and 'email' combined with 'link' make the purpose unambiguous. The name also contains 'resend' and 'ownership_invitation', which matches the description and distinguishes it from sibling tools that do not involve invitation resending.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that the invitation must be pending) or when not to use it. There is no mention of other tools for comparison.

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