Отозвать приглашение

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the concrete consequence ('перейти по ней больше не получится'), which usefully confirms irreversibility of the link, but does not address permissions, idempotency behavior, or what the caller observes on repeat calls.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the effect is stated immediately after the action.

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 small two-parameter destructive action, the essentials are present and annotations carry the safety profile. However, the description never mentions the optional case parameter or any permission/authorization requirement, leaving mild 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 coverage is 100% — both case and invite_id are fully documented in the schema, including that invite_id comes from members_list. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Гасит' — kills/revokes) and resource ('ссылку-приглашение'), so the agent understands this invalidates an invite link. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like invites_get or invites_create, though the revoke action is distinct enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as members_remove or invites_get — no prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing. Usage must be inferred purely from the action described.

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