burn_cdp

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

Strong disclosure of critical execution pattern: 'builds an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing' explains this is a transaction builder, not an executor. With no annotations provided, this disclosure is essential. Missing: irreversibility warnings, prerequisite balance checks, or fee disclosures expected for DeFi mutations.

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?

Optimal density: single sentence with two precise clauses. Front-loaded with action ('Burn iAssets'), followed by purpose ('reduce CDP debt'), then execution model ('builds unsigned transaction...'). Zero redundancy or filler.

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?

Without output schema, description partially compensates by specifying return format ('CBOR hex'). Adequate for a transaction-building tool, though could explicitly state return type (string) or mention that successful execution requires subsequent signing and submission.

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 80% (high), with clear descriptions for address format, asset enum, and amount units. Description adds contextual relationship between parameters (burning iAssets reduces debt) but does not supplement schema with additional format details or constraints. Baseline 3 appropriate given schema carries heavy load.

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?

Excellent specificity: 'Burn iAssets to reduce CDP debt' provides clear verb (burn), resource (iAssets), and outcome (debt reduction). Effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like close_cdp (full closure), mint_cdp (debt increase), and liquidate_cdp (forced closure).

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?

Provides implicit guidance through 'reduce' (suggesting partial repayment vs. full closure), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance. Does not clarify when to choose burn_cdp over close_cdp or deposit_cdp for debt management, leaving agents to infer from the 'reduce' verb alone.

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