Grant an agent a covenant: an explicit lease of authority. scopes support wildcards ('payments.', ''); budget_minor is the total spend ceiling in minor units; expires_at is ISO-8601. Returns the covenant_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scopes | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| principal | Yes | ||
| expires_at | Yes | ||
| budget_minor | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description mentions returning covenant_id but lacks details on side effects, permissions needed, or idempotency. Adequate but not thorough.
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 sentences: first defines purpose, second provides key parameter details. Front-loaded and no wasted words.
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?
Covers purpose and important parameter details. Output schema exists (returns covenant_id) but not elaborated. Missing explanation of principal and agent_id roles, but overall sufficient for a tool with 5 required params.
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 0%. Description adds meaning for scopes (wildcards), budget_minor (total spend ceiling in minor units), and expires_at (ISO-8601). Principal and agent_id are not explained, relying on parameter titles.
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 clearly states 'Grant an agent a covenant: an explicit lease of authority,' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like revoke_covenant and list_covenants by focusing on creation.
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?
Provides parameter usage details (wildcards in scopes, budget_minor as spend ceiling, ISO-8601 for expires_at), implicitly guiding when to use. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: granting, revoking, checking, listing, status, auditing, and self-description. No two tools overlap in function.
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., grant_covenant, check_act), but covenant_status uses noun_noun, a minor inconsistency.
Seven tools cover the covenant lifecycle without bloat, fitting well within the 3-15 optimal range.
Core operations (grant, revoke, check, list, status, audit) are covered. Missing a dedicated tool to view a single covenant's details, but list_covenants and covenant_status likely suffice.