Revoke invitation link

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the operation mutates community state and is gated behind an explicit confirm=true flag tied to user intent, which is not derivable from the 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?

Two tight sentences with the operation stated first and the confirm precondition second. The opening 'Revoke invitation link' slightly duplicates the title and name rather than using the space for differentiation, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description needn't explain returns, and annotations carry the destructive profile. Still missing for a destructive tool: whether revocation is permanent or recoverable, and what happens to already-accepted invitations. 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 all three parameters (account, confirm, invitation_id) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the confirm semantics but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Revoke') and resource ('invitation link'), so the basic operation is unambiguous. However, the sibling set contains delete_invitation_link and update_invitation_link, and nothing here explains how revocation differs from deletion — the agent must guess which one 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?

It states a concrete precondition — confirm=true is required, and only when the user requested exactly this action — which is real usage guidance. It does not, however, address when to prefer this tool over delete_invitation_link or update_invitation_link, leaving the key routing decision implied.

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