mint_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it names the return values (publicKey pk_, secretKey sk_), flags the 'shown ONCE' non-idempotent nature, tells the caller to have the developer store it immediately, and warns that the secret leaks into the MCP transcript. These are exactly the traits annotations could not have supplied anyway.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, return shape, and lifecycle warning; no sentence is filler and each one (return types, one-time visibility, revocation location, transcript caveat) earns its place despite the longer 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return, and it does so precisely (pk_ vs sk_, one-time display). For a single-param credential-minting tool the description leaves nothing an agent needs in order to call it and handle the result safely.

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% and the gameId description already documents the UUID format and its source (from list_games). The prose reinforces that the game must be EXISTING and keyed by gameId, but adds no new syntactic or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the 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 (Mint) and resource (public/secret key pair) scoped to an EXISTING game by gameId. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_game (creates the game) and get_keys (retrieves existing keys), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

'Use when a game needs keys, or to add another pair' gives the triggering condition explicitly, and 'Key revocation/rotation is done in the dashboard' states where the adjacent operation lives, effectively excluding it from this tool. Both when-to-use and where-not-to-go are covered.

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