aiworkers_token_mint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the token is shown once, that save writes to credentials.json, and that the operation is currently free but will incur costs later. This conveys key side effects and mutation behavior. However, it does not mention error conditions (e.g., duplicate token) or recovery, which would elevate transparency further.

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 three sentences with zero waste. The first sentence immediately states the verb and resource ('Mint a child awm_ token'), followed by constraints, then parameter effects, then pricing. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 has 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain return values), the description covers the core action, prerequisites, side effects, and future behavior. It does not detail error states or edge cases (e.g., missing group_id), but for a straightforward minting operation, it is substantially complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'module' is the target module and that 'save' writes to credentials.json. 'group_id' is only vaguely referenced as 'one group' with no elaboration on its meaning or default. The description adds value beyond the empty schema but does not fully document all parameters, leaving group_id under-specified.

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 'Mint' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a child awm_ token for one module + one group' with the constraint 'Parent awp_ only.' It distinguishes the tool from its many siblings (none of which mention token minting) and the purpose is unambiguous.

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 states prerequisites ('Parent awp_ only.') and explains when to use the save parameter ('writes it to credentials.json so this MCP can call that module without Mini App'). It also notes future cost ('Free for now; later will debit group TokenTime'). While alternatives are not mentioned, no sibling tool serves the same purpose, so guidance is clear.

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