covenant__check_act

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 key behaviors: checks then records if allowed, is deny-by-default, idempotent (no double budget consumption), and lands on audit chain. This goes beyond just stating the action, though it omits details like what happens on denial or mutation specifics.

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 is concise (3 lines) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bracket prefix '[covenant — deny-by-default authority leases]' is slightly extraneous but does not harm clarity. Overall, every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the action, idempotency, and audit logging but leaves out parameter semantics and return value. It is adequate but has clear gaps that could hinder correct usage.

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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description merely implies covenant_id and act_id from the action statement but does not explain 'scope' or 'amount_minor'. It adds very little meaning beyond parameter names, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks and records a proposed act against a covenant, using a specific verb (check) and resource (act against covenant). It also includes distinguishing context like deny-by-default and idempotency, which sets it apart from sibling covenant tools like grant_covenant, revoke_covenant, or covenant_status.

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 provides clear context: deny-by-default implies default rejection, idempotent on act_id ensures retry safety, and audit chain indicates permanence. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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