mint_action_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does indicate that the tool creates a receipt and mentions an input constraint ('Allowlisted to safe chars'), but it does not describe permissions, side effects, or reversibility, leaving some behavioral transparency gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that state the core purpose, list the most relevant optional parameters, and note a safety constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers only a subset of optional parameters and provides no guidance on when to use it versus the sibling tool 'mint_receipt_for_record_change'. This leaves significant gaps in the agent's ability to invoke it correctly, despite having an output schema.

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 description adds meaning for three optional parameters (triggered_by_type, triggered_by_source, decision_model) by explaining their allowed values. However, the required parameters (agent_id, operation, target) are not explicitly described, though their names are fairly self-explanatory. With 0% schema coverage, this partial compensation merits a baseline-plus score.

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 uses a specific verb 'mint' with a clear resource 'post-quantum receipt' and a clear scope ('arbitrary consequential agent action'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'mint_receipt_for_record_change' by targeting arbitrary actions, not just record changes.

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 implies usage for any consequential agent action, as opposed to record-specific receipts, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It gives clear context without explicit exclusions.

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