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

Annotations only declare the write/non-idempotent profile, so the description adds real value: the token is returned exactly once and cannot be retrieved again, it is scoped and revocable, and it requires workspace-owner authorization. It omits failure behavior and any rate or count limits on tokens.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and audience, then the critical one-time-return caveat, then the permission constraint. No filler or restated title.

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 5-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the irreversible one-shot secret return, and authorization. It leaves the scope defaults (env_scope none, all projects, 90-day expiry) entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but leaves the agent slightly under-briefed on scope implications.

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 80%, so the schema already documents projects, env_scope, agent_type, and expiry defaults. The description only gestures at scoping ('scoped') without explaining label, project restriction, or expiry choices, so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mint a new scoped, revocable DenkOps connection token') plus the concrete use cases (CLI, CI job, agent, GitHub Actions deploys). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like regenerate_connection or update_connection_scopes, though the word 'new' implies the distinction.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context (automating a CLI, CI job, or agent) and a concrete example (GitHub Actions deploys), plus a hard prerequisite ('Workspace owners only'). It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use this tool versus regenerate_connection.

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