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

Annotations only say non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description goes well beyond: the token is single-use with a ten-minute lifetime, is returned exactly once, must be held in IRONFANG_CONNECT_TOKEN rather than a file/log/history, and the cloud never selects a destination. That is exactly the security and lifecycle context an agent cannot get from annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and each following sentence carries a distinct operational fact (result contents, secret handling, trust boundary). It is dense and slightly long, but none of the sentences are 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what the result carries: the token, the gateway to dial, the completion command with a 127.0.0.1 target per route label, and the release to verify. Combined with the secret-handling and trust-boundary notes, an agent has enough to call and use the result correctly.

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 67%, and the schema itself already documents both `name` and `routes` (binding and default-to-all-labels). The description adds only the target format (http://127.0.0.1 per route label), which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a concrete verb and artifact: "Mint a single-use, ten-minute bootstrap token" so a local connector can forward callbacks. An agent immediately knows this produces a credential-bearing bootstrap payload. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, rig.connector.status, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear context for use (firing up `ironfang rig connect` on this machine to forward the run's callbacks) and states a hard constraint: the connector forwards only to targets named on its command line. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer rig.connector.status), so it is context-rich but not fully routing.

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