Mint capability (governance event)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals an authentication requirement ('Requires a vault-issued API key') and mentions the return ('Returns a mint receipt'), but is vague about side effects beyond 'governed action', which largely repeats the title. It does not address reversibility, failure modes, or governance approval details.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds distinct information: action, output, and requirements/governance. No wasted words or redundancy (except 'governed action' echoing the title, but it reinforces the point).

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with two nested object params and no output schema. The description covers the action, both inputs' roles, the output type, and a prerequisite. It does not explain the exact structure of the receipt or the governance workflow, but given no annotations or output schema, this is a reasonably complete description.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context by stating that the capability is minted 'from a MintDelegate and a signed MintRequest', but the schema descriptions already identify these as 'vault-issued' and 'bot-signed'. No additional structure or format details are provided.

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 clearly states 'Mint a capability through the vault from a MintDelegate and a signed MintRequest', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on creation rather than verification (ae_verify_*). The output and prerequisites further clarify the purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool by specifying prerequisites (vault-issued API key, MintDelegate, signed MintRequest) and the governed nature of the action. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are verification-focused, making the intended use case apparent.

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