mint_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does it well: it discloses that the seed never leaves the process, that a sponsor pays, that the call blocks for roughly a minute, that reruns dedupe instead of resubmitting, and what a failed response offers (`next`). Missing cost/permission details keep it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, then return shape, then retry semantics — a sensible ordering with no filler. Some phrasing is compressed to the point of opacity ("built, proven and signed here"), which costs a 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?

For a six-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, it covers prerequisites, defaulting rules, blocking duration, success payload shapes ({ tokenType, domain, issuerKey } and { status, txHash, transactionHash, result }), failure handling and idempotency. Semantics of domain/issuerKey and any fee expectations are the remaining gaps.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning on top — the recipient defaults to this wallet via get_attester_identity, and a different recipient requires *both* of its keys, which explains the schema's conditional requirement on recipientEncryptionPublicKey. It also clarifies that name is only half the token type identity.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Mint a shielded token ... on a token-factory deployment") and immediately frames the process's role ("This process is the issuer"). An agent can tell it apart from burn_token, send_token and derive_token_type without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions (factory must be on the sponsor's contract list, mint on its circuit list) and full retry guidance including when a *new* idempotencyKey is needed for a deliberate second call. It does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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