burn_token

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing that burning is an irreversible, state-changing operation. It merely says 'burn tokens' without explaining that tokens are permanently destroyed, total supply may decrease, or that this action requires appropriate permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise—just five words—with no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. While it is minimal, it does not waste words and is structurally simple. A slightly more detailed explanation would be helpful, but the conciseness is not a flaw.

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 token-burning tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention side effects (irreversibility, supply change), potential requirements (ownership/approval), or what the caller should expect in response. The presence of sibling tools does not compensate for this lack of context.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameters with simple descriptions: 'Amount to burn' and 'Contract ID'. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 clearly states the verb 'burn' and the resource 'tokens' with the scope 'from the caller'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mint_token and transfer_erc20 by indicating a destruction action. However, it could be more specific about which token standard or chain is involved.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that burning is the opposite of minting or transferring, nor does it reference any prerequisites or conditions. Usage is implied only by the verb 'burn'.

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