make_asset_destroy_txn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a destructive operation (permanently destroying an asset), requires specific permissions or conditions, involves irreversible changes, or has network implications. This omission is critical for a tool with 'destroy' in its name.

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 a single, under-specified sentence that fails to convey necessary information for a destructive tool. While concise, it lacks front-loaded critical details and wastes the opportunity to inform users about risks or usage, making it ineffective rather than efficiently brief.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 8 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects, return values, or error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool safely or 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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no semantic context beyond the schema, such as explaining the significance of 'assetIndex' for destruction or how 'note' might be used. Baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage without description enhancement.

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 'Create an asset destroy transaction' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('asset destroy transaction'), but lacks details on what 'destroy' entails or how it differs from similar tools like 'make_asset_config_txn' or 'make_asset_transfer_txn', leaving the purpose vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other asset-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'make_asset_config_txn' for modifying assets). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues, making it misleadingly simple for a destructive operation.

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