channel_revokeChannelAdminInvite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and actor, but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to the invitation or the user. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary words. It is efficient and directly conveys the core purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description provides the core purpose, but lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency (e.g., prerequisites, effects). Given the low complexity, the description is minimally viable but not complete.

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%, with each parameter having a description (e.g., chatId as 'Unique WhatsApp id for the given channel group'). The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so it does not compensate beyond the schema. 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?

Description uses a specific verb 'revokes' and identifies the resource 'channel admin invitation', with context 'sent to a user by a channel owner'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like channel_sendChannelAdminInvite and channel_demoteChannelAdmin.

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 states the action but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor mention prerequisites such as owner permission or that the invitation must be pending. Usage is implied by the verb but no exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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