revoke_readonly_invite

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description details behavioral traits: it marks the record as revoked at the current time, does not recall the token, and returns a specific structure. It does not contradict any annotations and adds valuable context about the limitation of the 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 description is a single paragraph of four sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, the caveat, the limitation, and the return/error conditions. It is front-loaded with the main action. While compact, it could be slightly restructured for clarity but is not overly verbose.

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 relatively simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers the action, important caveats, return format, error conditions, and differentiation from a more comprehensive recall mechanism. It provides enough context for an AI agent to use correctly without needing additional information.

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?

With only one parameter (`name`) and 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by specifying it is the invite name and that the tool refuses if the name is unknown or already revoked. The schema provides pattern constraints, and the description adds context about the parameter's role and validation behavior.

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 'Revoke a previously-generated read-only share invite by `name`', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'generate_readonly_link' by focusing on revocation and from 'list_readonly_invites' by being a mutation. The caveat about issuer-side bookkeeping further differentiates it from a hypothetical genuine recall tool.

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 explains when to use this tool: only for issuer-side bookkeeping, not for actual token recall. It mentions the limitation that anyone holding the token can still query addresses, and that genuine recall requires Model B (hosted enforcement endpoint), deferred. It also states conditions for success and refusal (if name unknown or already revoked), providing clear guidance on when to invoke.

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