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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds real value by stating the revocation is terminal and that all subsequent authorization checks will deny, which is the key operational consequence an agent needs. It does not say whether the optional reason is recorded in an audit trail or what happens on a repeat call.

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 sentences, the destructive effect front-loaded, zero padding. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety hints. However, for an irreversible destructive tool with undocumented parameters, the description leaves gaps around parameter meaning and failure modes (unknown or already-revoked covenant).

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 0% for two parameters, so the description carries the burden and gives none: neither covenant_id nor the optional reason is mentioned or explained. An agent must infer the identifier's role and the purpose of the free-form reason field entirely from the schema 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Revoke a covenant") plus the effect ("All subsequent checks deny"), which clearly separates it from the grant/list/status siblings. It stops short of naming an explicit counterpart such as grant_covenant, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 word "terminally" implies this is a last-resort operation, and "All subsequent checks deny" hints at the consequence, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of checking covenant_status first, and no statement of preconditions or error behavior. Usage is only implied.

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