revoke_chat_invite_link

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write operation. However, the description adds nothing beyond the word 'revoke'—it does not state that the link becomes permanently invalid or that the action is irreversible. Since the annotations cover the safety profile, the description contributes minimal behavioral context.

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 sentence with no filler, making it very concise and front-loaded with the essential action. However, it is so brief that it omits important context, though that brevity is not a penalty for this dimension alone.

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 tool with no output schema, the description lacks contextual information about effects, prerequisites, or when to use it. The presence of related sibling tools like edit_chat_invite_link highlights these omissions. The description is minimally viable but not complete for an agent deciding between similar operations.

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 schema provides a description for chat_id but not for invite_link, leaving 50% of parameters undocumented. The description 'Revoke an invite link' does not clarify the meaning or format of either parameter, failing to compensate for the schema's gap. It adds no semantic value beyond what the parameter names already convey.

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 uses the specific verb 'revoke' and identifies the resource as 'invite link', clearly distinguishing this action from sibling tools like create_chat_invite_link, edit_chat_invite_link, and export_chat_invite_link. Despite its brevity, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edit_chat_invite_link. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or situations where revoking is preferred over editing or creating a new link. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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