auth_mint_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does reasonably well: token lifetime is one hour, claims are scoped to this token and nothing is persisted, and the user must already exist. It omits prerequisites (Auth emulator must be running), permission/credential requirements, and any failure modes for unknown uids.

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?

A single sentence with the action, validity window, subject constraint, and intended follow-on use front-loaded, followed by the one non-obvious caveat about claims. No filler or redundancy.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it explains what is issued and its lifetime. Minor gaps remain around environment prerequisites and behavior on an invalid uid/tenant.

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 uid, claims, tenant, and provider are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the claims semantics (temporary, per-token override) but adds no new format, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (mint a Firebase ID token + refresh token) plus the scope (existing Auth emulator user) and the outcome (act as that user in function/REST calls). The 'claims replace custom claims for this token only' clause also separates it from the persistent-claims siblings like auth_set_claims.

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 a clear use context: when an agent needs to call a function or the REST API as a specific user. It does not name alternatives explicitly (e.g., use auth_set_claims to persist claims instead, or auth_revoke_tokens to invalidate), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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