mint_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that the token value is shown only once (unrecoverable afterwards), that minting requires an admin credential, and that default expiry differs by scope. It stops short of stating irreversibility of revocation, rate limits, or whether minting invalidates existing tokens.

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?

Two compact clauses, zero filler, with the critical operational fact (token shown once) and the credential requirement front-loaded before the option recap.

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?

All four parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, and no output schema exists, so the description's coverage of the one-time-visible return value is the key remaining burden, which it meets. Missing only the outcome of calling it (e.g., whether existing tokens are affected).

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 each parameter is already documented, including the scope and expiry enums, so baseline is 3. The description restates the same enum options and defaults rather than adding new semantics such as format constraints or label behavior.

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 new profile token'. It also discloses the required credential type (admin token), so an agent knows the operation's class. It does not differentiate from the sibling bind_token, which is the nearest ambiguity.

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?

Usage is only implied: minting requires an admin token and the resulting token is display-once, which hints at a create-and-capture workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-bind_token or when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer the routing.

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