burn_cdp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool burns iAssets, which signals a destructive effect on those assets, and explicitly clarifies that it only builds an unsigned transaction for client-side signing, meaning it does not submit or execute anything itself. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name and schema.

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 front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action, the purpose, the output format, and the signing flow with no filler. Every segment earns its place, and the most important differentiator ('unsigned transaction') is placed prominently.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by stating the return form: a CBOR hex unsigned transaction. It also makes clear that the transaction is for client-side signing, which is essential context for an agent deciding to invoke it. It is not fully exhaustive regarding error cases or prerequisite CDP state, but it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation given the parameter schemas.

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%, so the schema already documents all but one parameter. The description does not add new meaning to any parameter beyond what the schema provides. It reinforces that 'amount' and 'asset' relate to burning, but that is already evident from the schema and tool purpose, so the description adds minimal value here.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Burn iAssets to reduce CDP debt'. It also adds the distinguishing behavioral detail that it 'builds an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex)' rather than executing an on-chain action. This clearly separates it from sibling CDP tools like deposit_cdp, withdraw_cdp, or redeem_cdp.

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 'to reduce CDP debt' implies the intended use case, and 'for client-side signing' indicates it is for off-chain transaction preparation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tool should be chosen instead, such as withdraw_cdp or redeem_cdp. The usage context is present but left to inference.

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