Mint a short-lived token for an agent connection

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Authorization class: board,' which provides authorization context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose idempotency, rate limits, or side effects, which are partially covered by annotations.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it omits essential parameter information, making it incomplete rather than efficient.

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 tool has complex nested parameters and no description of them. The description does not explain what the token is used for, how long it lives, or prerequisites. Given the output schema existence, return value explanation is not needed, but parameter context is severely lacking.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of parameters such as 'scope', 'grantId', 'subject', or 'requestedTtlSeconds'. With this gap, the description fails to help the agent understand parameter meaning.

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 title and description both clearly state 'Mint a short-lived token for an agent connection,' using a specific verb ('mint') and identifying the resource (agent connection). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, though the purpose of the token (e.g., authentication scope) is not elaborated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like connection grant operations exist but are not mentioned. The description includes 'Authorization class: board' as a hint but does not explicitly state usage context or exclusions.

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