evaluate_revocation_impactEvaluate the downstream impact when a data source revokes consent, propagating obligations through derivation chains to show which agents and data are affected.
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?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that obligations propagate through derivation chains, but 'propagates' is ambiguous for a read-only tool (simulated vs. actual mutation) and no permissions, scope limits, or result format are disclosed.
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, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the mechanism detail. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should ideally hint at what the evaluation returns (impact report, violated obligations, affected derivations). It also omits how derivation chains are discovered, leaving a gap for a read-only analysis tool whose whole value is its output.
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?
Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description adds no syntax or format detail, but for a single fully-described sourceId there is nothing material to compensate for.
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?
States a specific verb and outcome: evaluating the consequences of a data source revoking consent, plus the propagation mechanism. However, it does not distinguish this read-only evaluation from siblings like resolve_rights_propagation or the mutation-style revoke_endorsement/revoke_delegation, leaving the agent to infer it is a what-if analysis.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives such as resolve_rights_propagation or resolve_lineage. An agent cannot tell from the description alone whether to call this or a sibling propagation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.