Mint a MagicSword agent enrollment token

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

Annotations only declare the generic write/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile; the description adds meaningful traits: the token is 'one-time', 'bearer-equivalent for enrollment', and must be handed to a human within a TTL. It omits whether repeat calls invalidate prior tokens, auth requirements, or rate limits, keeping it short of 5.

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, each earning its place: purpose first, then the security-handling instruction, then the TTL bounds. Front-loaded and free of padding.

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 one-parameter minting tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly and safely, including that the returned value is a bearer-equivalent secret.

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 single ttl_seconds parameter is fully documented with range and default. The description restates the same facts in human units ('default 1 hour; min 5 minutes; max 24 hours'), which aids readability but adds no information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 — 'Mints a one-time enrollment token used to register a new MagicSword agent' — with the scope ('against the org owning the API key'). No sibling tool mints tokens, so the agent can place it immediately against a list of list_*/manage_*/show_* tools.

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?

Tells the agent what to do with the result ('surface it to the human and instruct them to use it within the TTL') and frames the token as a registration artifact, which is real usage context. It stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance, though no alternative sibling exists to route against.

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