Revoke a covenant immediately and terminally. All subsequent checks deny.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| covenant_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the irreversible, terminal nature and the effect on subsequent checks, but lacks details on authorization requirements, side effects, or return behavior beyond the output schema.
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, front-loading the main action without extraneous words. Every sentence adds essential 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?
The description covers the action's core purpose and effect, but given the lack of parameter explanations and the presence of an output schema (not shown), it is still incomplete for an agent to use correctly without additional context.
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?
The description does not explain either parameter ('covenant_id' or 'reason'), and the schema provides no descriptions either (0% coverage). This leaves the agent without guidance on required input or optional reasoning.
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 the specific verb 'Revoke' and the resource 'covenant', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'grant_covenant' and 'list_covenants'. It also adds immediacy and terminality as key differentiators.
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 use for permanent revocation with 'immediately and terminally' and 'all subsequent checks deny', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings.
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.