mint_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful lifecycle behavior: the token is short-lived and automatically revoked after the TTL expires. This goes beyond the schema, though it does not mention permissions or failure modes.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover return value/behavior, but it only defines the token's lifecycle. It omits what the tool returns (e.g., the token string) and error conditions, making it adequate but not fully complete for a 4-parameter tool.

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%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds context around 'scoped' and 'TTL expires,' which loosely connects to scopes and ttl_seconds, but it does not provide deeper syntax or formatting details 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 uses a specific verb ('Generates') plus a concrete resource ('short-lived, scoped token') and enumerates target providers. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like revoke_token or get_secret.

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 the tool is used when a short-lived, scoped token for a specific provider is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like start_oauth_flow or revoke_token, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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