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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'confirming an already-committed job returns its paper.' It adds the behavioral detail that the materialization is synchronous and that the operation persists ExamPaper, questions, and mark schemes. It also mentions the return of exam_paper_id, which is beyond the annotation set.

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 four sentences and front-loaded with the main verb and subject. Each sentence carries a distinct piece of information—purpose, materialization, overrides, idempotency, and return value—with no filler.

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?

Covers the workflow context (paper_create, awaiting_confirmation), the synchronous materialization, override semantics, idempotent behavior, and return value. The schema supplies parameter-level detail and the output schema exists, so the description is comprehensive for its complexity.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including per-field descriptions for every metadata override. The description adds only a high-level summary ('Optionally override the detected identity') without additional per-parameter detail, so it doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource combination—'Mint the exam paper'—and anchors it to a concrete workflow step ('job parked at awaiting_confirmation'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming paper_create as the precursor and describing the materialization of ExamPaper, questions, and mark schemes.

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 explicitly states the precondition ('job parked at awaiting_confirmation') and references paper_create as the source workflow. It explains the optional override behavior and says to omit it to use extraction-detected identity. It does not explicitly list exclusions (e.g., 'do not use if the job is still processing'), but the awaiting_confirmation requirement is a clear gate.

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