Issue a scoped access 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 well: TTL cap (≤30 minutes), a disk side effect (grant written 0600 to the operator-configured home dir), one-time secret semantics, and a return value that is a path reference rather than the secret. It omits caller privileges/auth requirements and revocation or idempotency behavior.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and lifetime, then the file-handling caveat. The parenthetical SDK example is load-bearing, though the sentence grows long and slightly overloaded.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: lifetime limit, where the artifact lands, that the result is a path, and how not to leak the secret. Failure modes and the relationship to the mandate lifecycle are left unstated.

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 33% (only actor_did is documented in-schema), so the description should compensate. It adds real value by tying the token to a grant and restating the TTL ceiling that matches the schema's maximum of 1800, but mandate_id is never explained beyond the word 'grant' and no format guidance is offered for either DID or mandate identifier.

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 gives a precise verb+resource ('Mint a short-lived proof-of-possession token') plus its scope and audience ('an agent presents to the gateway'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like mandare_issue_passport and mandare_issue_mandate without needing the 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?

It states the operational context (presented to the gateway) and the correct consumption path (hand the FILE to the agent process via tokenCredentialsFromIssueJson). It does not name alternatives or state when to prefer this over issue_mandate/issue_passport, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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