codapult_guard_waiversList, add, remove, or renew time-bounded, project-approved waivers for active architecture Guard findings to manage exceptions without changing rules.
List and manage time-bounded, project-approved exceptions to active Guard findings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| root | No | Project path or workspace root. | |
| issue | No | ||
| owner | No | ||
| action | No | list | |
| reason | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| expires_at | No | ||
| fingerprint | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it never states that add/remove/renew are mutations, that confirm=true is required, whether removal is reversible, or what approval/authorization is needed. 'Time-bounded' and 'project-approved' hint at expiry and approval semantics, which is the only real disclosure.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the core resource stated immediately. It is arguably too terse for a 9-parameter mutation tool, but nothing in it is wasted or buried.
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?
For a 9-parameter tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 11% schema coverage, one sentence is not enough. The agent cannot tell what a list result contains, what happens on remove, or how confirm and expires_at interact with the action enum.
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 11% (only 'root' documented) across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. 'Time-bounded' loosely maps to expires_at and 'project-approved' to root/owner, but action, confirm, reason, id, fingerprint, and issue get no explanation at all.
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 names a specific resource (time-bounded, project-approved exceptions) and the verb set (list and manage), and it usefully glosses the tool name 'waivers' as exceptions to active Guard findings. It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings like codapult_guard_governance or codapult_guard_review, leaving the agent to infer boundaries.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling Guard tools, and no mention of the list/add/remove/renew action modes or which mode a given request implies. No prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow position are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.