burn_tokens

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

No annotations exist, so description is the sole source. It mentions 'reduce supply permanently' implying irreversibility, but lacks details on required permissions, error conditions (insufficient balance, invalid mint), gas fees, or transaction confirmation.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core action and effect. However, it may be too brief given the destructive nature of the operation.

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?

No output schema exists, yet description omits return value (e.g., transaction signature), error handling, prerequisites (owner key, token existence), and fees. For a permanent destructive action, this is inadequate.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; for example, 'UI units' is not clarified relative to raw token units. Parameter descriptions are adequate but not enhanced.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Burn', resource 'SPL tokens', and the effect 'reduce supply permanently', which distinguishes it from siblings like mint_tokens (increase supply) and transfer_token (move tokens).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., token account ownership, SOL for fees) or scenarios where burning is appropriate.

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