aps_capability_mint_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects and operational traits. It mentions signing and echoing but does not explain whether a receipt is stored, returned, or what permissions are required. The private key usage is implied but not stated explicitly.

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 compact—three sentences plus search keywords—and front-loads the 'capability-token gateway receipt' label. It is efficient, though the M2/M3 jargon could be clarified without much extra length.

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's complexity, lack of output schema, and absent annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the overall flow, return value, or how the inputs like request and gateway_private_key are used, assuming substantial domain knowledge.

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 only 33%, leaving most parameters (request, deny_reason, gateway_private_key, gateway_public_key) undocumented. The description introduces terms like challenge_hash and delegation_chain_root that are not directly mapped to schema properties, adding some context but failing to explain the parameters themselves.

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 the tool signs a permit or deny over the sink's challenge_hash and echoes the delegation_chain_root, making the core function clear. It distinguishes from siblings like aps_capability_evaluate_authority by positioning itself as the 'M3 gateway receipt' step, though it relies on domain-specific shorthand.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aps_capability_issue_challenge or aps_capability_sign_effect. The description implies it fits an M2-to-M3 flow but does not state prerequisites, sequence, or exclusions.

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