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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations: the raw key is returned exactly once, it must be handed to the worker process, and it should not be repeated in chat. It also discloses the ownership requirement. This is especially valuable for a credential-issuing tool, and it does not contradict the 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?

Three tight sentences: the first front-loads the action and purpose, the second covers the critical one-time-exposure security behavior, and the third covers ownership and lifecycle alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the key enables, that it is shown only once, what to do with it, who may request it, and where to go for lifecycle changes. Nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents worker_id and label well. The description reinforces that the worker must be owned/administered by the caller, but this largely mirrors the schema's 'Must be yours.' Therefore it adds only marginal semantic value beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('Mint') and resource ('tng_ bearer key') and clearly identifies the purpose: letting a worker call Tango's HTTP worker API outside MCP. It also distinguishes itself from sibling lifecycle tools by naming rotate_worker_key/revoke_worker_key as alternatives.

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 says exactly when this tool is appropriate: when a worker needs to call the HTTP worker API outside MCP. It explicitly names the lifecycle alternatives (rotate_worker_key/revoke_worker_key) and states the ownership prerequisite, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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