Assess downstream effects when a data source revokes consent, propagating obligations through derivation chains to identify impacted data and required actions.
Evaluate what happens when a data source revokes consent. Propagates obligations through derivation chains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sourceId | Yes | Source ID that is revoking consent |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Propagates obligations through derivation chains,' which signals a side effect but leaves ambiguity about whether this is a read-only evaluation or an active mutation. It does not clarify data modifications, reversibility, permission requirements, or return format.
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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first names the purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral detail. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing; every word contributes.
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 tool likely has complex behavior (propagating obligations through derivation chains), yet the description gives no details about output, side effects, or edge cases. There is no output schema to clarify return values, and the absence of annotations forces the description to bear the full burden, which it fails to do.
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 sole parameter 'sourceId' is fully described in the schema as 'Source ID that is revoking consent.' The description's mention of 'data source revokes consent' aligns with this but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to elaborate further.
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: evaluating what happens when a data source revokes consent, and specifically mentions propagation through derivation chains. This is more specific than sibling tools like 'resolve_lineage' or 'resolve_rights_propagation', and the verb 'evaluate' plus resource 'revocation impact' is unambiguous.
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 usage: when a data source revokes consent, this tool evaluates the impact. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools with similar governance themes (e.g., 'resolve_lineage', 'resolve_rights_propagation') are not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.