covenant__grant_covenant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It correctly indicates the operation is a grant (write) and explains some parameters, but does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, or implications of wildcards.

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 compact, with one sentence and parameter notes. No redundant information, and all content is relevant and well-organized.

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 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core concept, parameter details for 3 params, and return value. Lacks prerequisites and side effects, but is fairly complete.

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%, meaning the description must compensate. It explains scopes, budget_minor, and expires_at well but omits principal and agent_id, leaving two required parameters undocumented.

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 verb 'Grant' and the resource 'covenant', and explains the concept of a covenant as an explicit lease of authority. It distinguishes from sibling tools like revoke and list.

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 permissions in a deny-by-default system but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like covenant__check_act or covenant__revoke_covenant.

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