mint_link

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 describes the action but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or other behavioral traits beyond the mutually exclusive parameter warning. It is adequate but not detailed.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, input flexibility, and usage constraint. Front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose, with no unnecessary words.

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 description covers the core purpose and one key constraint, but lacks information about return values (no output schema) and does not guide usage of complex nested parameters like access_policy. It is functional but could be more 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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It reiterates the ID prefix information already in the schema and adds the mutual exclusivity warning, but does not explain parameter semantics further.

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 clearly states the action ('Mint a new access link') and the resource ('existing qURL resource'). It also explains the two accepted ID prefixes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_qurl by emphasizing that it generates additional links without creating a new resource.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('generate additional access links without creating a new resource') and warns against providing both expires_in and expires_at, though alternative tools are not named directly.

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