mint_settle_cell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses reward percentages, state transitions (Active → Evaluating), and side effects (trust score bumps). However, it does not mention reversibility or potential failures.

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 two paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds necessary detail without 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 complexity (3 params, output schema exists), the description covers all needed context: workflow, conditional logic, and effects. It is complete for an agent to use 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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds context: `scores` is for recording if cell is Active, `participants` used to rebuild accounts. This adds value 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Trigger settlement of a work cell.' It specifies the reward distribution (96% participants, 2% protocol, 2% creator) and actions like returning stakes and bumping trust scores. This distinguishes it from siblings like mint_settle_policy.

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 explicit guidance: when to include `scores` (if cell is Active) and when to omit (if already evaluated). It also states the signer must be the cell's creator. It lacks direct comparison to other settlement tools but is clear on prerequisites.

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