Consent for Jev (TypeSafe)

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, especially the privacy-relevant point that `show` returns exactly what is sent and the restriction that granting consent is impossible here. It does not contradict the annotations, but it omits the consequences of revoking consent or whether revocation is immediate.

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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. It moves directly from the operation to the `show` behavior and then the critical grant limitation.

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 single-parameter consent tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the two actions, the `show` payload, and the grant limitation. The main missing context is what `revoke` changes operationally and whether it affects subsequent Jev checks.

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?

There is one required parameter with an enum (`show`/`revoke`) and 0% schema description coverage. The description meaningfully explains `show` output and the grant restriction, but it does not add much semantic detail for `revoke` beyond the action name.

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 gives a specific verb pair and resource: show or revoke consent to send text to TypeSafe for Jev checks. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as agiw_status or agiw_nisi_run, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate against agiw_jev_pre/agiw_jev_post.

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?

It clearly states an important usage boundary: consent cannot be granted through this tool and must be granted by the user via `agiw-mcp consent grant` in a terminal. It also explains that `show` returns exactly what is sent, but it does not explicitly describe when to prefer revoke or what operational impact revoking has.

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