Mint Step-Up Token

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, it discloses the 5-minute expiry, that the token is carried in the X-Step-Up-Token header set by the caller, and that the tool is a privileged operator tool withheld from hosted deployments. These are behavioral details that materially affect invocation and use.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose, expiry, then operational constraints. The most important identifying statement is first, and no sentence is filler.

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 one-parameter token tool, the description is nearly complete: purpose, expiry, header name, and deployment availability are all covered. The only gap is the absence of an explicit response-shape description (no output schema exists), so the agent must infer how the returned token is represented.

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 single parameter tenant_id is fully documented in the schema ('Tenant ID to scope the token to'). The description does not add new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies; it only reinforces the scoping context indirectly via 'for write operations'.

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-resource pair ('Get a fresh step-up authorization token') and states the purpose ('for write operations'). This clearly marks it as a token-minting tool rather than one of the many write/read siblings, even without naming them.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use it: when a fresh step-up token for write operations is needed, and the 5-minute expiry implies it should be obtained right before the write. It also gives a strong when-not/how-not constraint — the token is never an argument to another tool and is not present in hosted deployments — though it does not name alternative tools.

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