revoke_readonly_invite

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the action is bookkeeping, does not invalidate existing tokens, returns a specific structure with revokedAt, and refuses unknown or already revoked names. Annotations already indicated destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description elaborates the real-world impact.

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 concise (about 5 sentences) and well-structured: it starts with the primary action, then explains the behavioral caveat, and ends with return and error conditions. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, limitations, return value, and error case. It also contextualizes itself among siblings. It is fully comprehensive for an agent to use correctly.

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 description references the parameter 'name' and explains its role (the name of the invite) and how it's used (revoke by name). However, it does not detail the format constraints (pattern, length limits) present in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but could be more explicit.

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 a previously-generated read-only share invite') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_readonly_link and list_readonly_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 explains when to use the tool (to revoke an invite by name) and provides explicit guidance on limitations: it is issuer-side bookkeeping and does not recall the token from recipients. It also mentions an alternative (Model B for genuine recall), giving clear context on when not to rely on this tool.

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