Reset a group's invite link

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds specific context: 'Anyone holding the old link can no longer join with it.' This clarifies exactly what gets destroyed and the lasting consequence, which goes beyond the annotation. No contradiction with 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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The primary action and consequence are both stated efficiently, and every clause adds value.

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 description covers the core behavior and return value ('return a new one'), and the schema covers parameter meaning and the confirmation constraint. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the sibling get_group_invite_link for read-only needs, but for a simple destructive action the description is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions are already clear about accountId, groupId, and the confirm requirement. The tool description does not add new semantic detail about these parameters, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Revoke') and resource ('group's invite link'), and clearly states the result ('return a new one'). This distinguishes it from the read-only sibling get_group_invite_link, since it describes a mutating rotation action rather than just fetching a link.

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 use case is implied: use this when the current invite link should be invalidated and replaced. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_group_invite_link or state when not to use it, such as when the user only wants to view the link without invalidating it.

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