mint_cdp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses that this is a mutation (increases debt) and that it does not execute on-chain, instead building an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing. It could add prerequisites like CDP health requirements, but the core behavior is 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?

A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and debt consequence, then states the output format. No filler or redundant content.

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 adequately covers the tool's purpose, side effect, and return format, which matters because there is no output schema and no annotations. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites, CDP health, and authorization, but nothing prevents an agent from understanding what the tool does and how to invoke it.

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 80% and most parameters are already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no per-parameter nuance beyond echoing that an existing CDP is referenced by its UTxO and that iAssets are minted.

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 action ('Mint additional iAssets'), a specific target ('an existing CDP'), and the key effect ('increases debt'). This differentiates it from siblings like open_cdp (creating a new CDP) and burn_cdp (reducing debt).

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 phrase 'from an existing CDP' clearly implies this tool is for increasing an already-open CDP's debt, not opening a new one. It does not explicitly name alternatives like open_cdp or state exclusions, but the usage context is clear.

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