covenant__grant_covenant

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the return of a covenant_id and gives parameter hints, but omits important details like whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or requires specific authentication. The mutation nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 brief at two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in brackets. It avoids extraneous content, though a more structured breakdown of parameters would improve readability.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and five required params, the description covers core usage but lacks detail on return value structure and omitted parameter explanations. It provides enough for basic invocation but not for comprehensive understanding.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that scopes support wildcards, budget_minor is a spend ceiling in minor units, and expires_at is ISO-8601. However, it does not explain principal or agent_id beyond their names.

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 identifies the tool as granting a covenant, an explicit lease of authority. The verb 'Grant' and noun 'covenant' are specific, and the context of 'deny-by-default authority leases' distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other agent-related actions like deletion or description.

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 the tool is for granting authority but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like covenant revocation or other agent management tools. It provides no guidance on preconditions, when not to use, or exclusions.

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