mint_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation creates a token, is free, is owner-only, has a 100-token cap, supports optional constraints, and returns a token id (tok_…) to share as the credential. It does not mention revocation or whether minting affects existing tokens, but it is substantially transparent.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded, with no filler. It states the purpose first, then enumerates options and constraints, and ends with a concrete example. The 'FREE' emphasis is slightly promotional but still informative.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core workflow, return value, constraints, and an example. It is missing require_fingerprint and does not fully explain the id parameter, but overall it gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains type, reads_allowed/writes_allowed caps, expiry, and IP restriction, and the example clarifies id. However, require_fingerprint is not described, and id is only shown in an example rather than explicitly defined, leaving gaps for a 7-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Mint a collaborator token for a baton.' It clearly states the purpose—letting another agent read/write without your key—and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_baton, read_baton, and append_to_baton.

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 gives clear context: use this when you want to grant another agent access to a baton. It also states a key restriction ('Owner only') and a limit ('Up to 100 tokens per baton'), but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or say when not to use it beyond the owner restriction.

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