xrp_burn_nft

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Burn' implies destruction, but it never states that the action is irreversible, does not mention any prerequisites beyond ownership, or what happens to the NFT's offers. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 five words long, front-loads the action, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple mutation with only two parameters, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description alone is inadequate. It fails to communicate the irreversible nature of the burn, potential side effects, or the expected return value, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions ('NFT Token ID to burn' and 'Owner private key'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'burn' and the resource 'NFT', and qualifies it with 'you own', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mint_nft or create_nft_offer. It conveys exactly what the tool does in a compact phrase.

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 implies usage when you own an NFT and want to permanently destroy it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It's a single sentence with no contextual guidance beyond the implied ownership condition.

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