Delete invitation link

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: that the call mutates community state and that confirm=true is a required guard for the user-requested action. Reversibility and rate limits remain undisclosed, so not a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the behavioral constraint. Slightly redundant in restating the tool name, but no wasted padding.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the confirm gate but omits what specifically changes in community state, whether the action is reversible, and how it differs from revoke_invitation_link. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema already explains account, confirm, and invitation_id. The description only echoes the confirm=true requirement already documented in the schema, adding no syntax or format detail. Baseline 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?

States a verb and resource ('Delete invitation link'), but this is essentially the title restated with no additional specificity. It does not distinguish itself from the very close sibling revoke_invitation_link (nor update_invitation_link), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which removal operation applies.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The closest siblings, revoke_invitation_link and update_invitation_link, are the obvious alternatives an agent must choose between, and neither is mentioned. The confirm note is a call precondition, not usage guidance.

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