covenant__revoke_covenant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the irreversible nature ('immediately and terminally') and the effect on subsequent checks. This is valuable but could be enhanced by noting any prerequisites or side effects beyond the denial of checks.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the category in brackets. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more comprehensive behavioral context. It does not explain what the tool returns, any side effects (e.g., on related resources), or required permissions. For a destructive action, this incomplete context could confuse an agent.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the parameters (covenant_id and reason) at all. The schema itself lacks descriptions. Therefore, the description provides no added meaning for the parameters, which is a significant 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Revoke a covenant' and specifies it is 'immediately and terminally' with the effect that 'All subsequent checks deny'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like grant_covenant, check_act, or covenant_status, which serve different purposes.

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 usage when a covenant needs to be revoked. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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