3land Mint And List

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

Repeats annotation info ('operation class write') without adding behavioral details like error handling, atomicity, or fees. The note to 'confirm... before writes' is a prerequisite, not a behavioral trait. Annotations already indicate write and not destructive, so description adds minimal transparency.

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?

One paragraph, but includes vague 'Use for...' and 'SAP MCP context' that add noise. Core action is clear, but extra sentences reduce conciseness.

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 9 parameters, existing output schema, and sibling tools, the description lacks details on atomicity of mint+list, failure scenarios, and prerequisites beyond 'confirm before writes'. Not sufficiently complete for a complex write operation.

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 baseline is met. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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?

States 'Mint an NFT on 3.Land and automatically list it for sale' – a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling '3land_listForSale' by combining both actions, though the broad 'Use for... cancellation and purchase flows' introduces ambiguity.

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?

Does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings like '3land_listForSale' or '3land_cancelListing'. The vague 'Use for... flows' suggests inappropriate use cases, and no clear alternative is provided.

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