groupChat_revokeInvite

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the core behavior: the current invite code is invalidated and a new one is generated. This goes beyond the name alone and gives the agent a concrete understanding of the operation's effect.

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 brief and front-loaded with a bracket prefix and a clear action. The slight redundancy between 'Invalidate the invite code' and 'Invalidate the current group invite code and generates a new one' is minor, but the second sentence adds the important detail of generating a new code.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does. The chatId and sessionId parameters are well-defined in the schema, and the operation's effect is clearly stated. It could mention the side effect of invalidating existing invite links, but overall it is complete enough for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what is already in the schema. ChatId and sessionId are well described in the schema, but the description does not mention them or clarify their roles.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Invalidate the invite code' and further explains it invalidates the current code and generates a new one. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like groupChat_getInviteCode, which retrieves rather than invalidates.

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 implies when to use the tool ('Invalidate the current group invite code') but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. It is clear from context that this is for revoking invites, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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