radiant_build_data_asset

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It says the tool returns a CBOR-ready metadata structure, which implies a pure build operation rather than an on-chain transaction, but it never explicitly states side effects, whether anything is broadcast, or whether wallet/contract context is required. This leaves key behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the main purpose and output format. It is concise, though the brevity leaves behavioral and usage details undisclosed.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters, 6 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the resulting CBOR structure contains, how it relates to the DataMarketplace contract pattern, or what conditions make this tool appropriate among the large sibling set.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'CBOR-ready metadata structure' output framing, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters such as content_hash format, price units, or license expectations.

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 clearly identifies the tool as building Glyph NFT metadata for a data marketplace assetainer, with a specific verb ('Build') and resource. The DataMarketplace contract pattern and CBOR-ready output help separate it from generic NFT/transaction builders, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_nft, build_transaction, or parse_glyph_envelope. The description implies a data-marketplace NFT metadata construction use case but does not state prerequisites, whether this is a pure off-chain step, or what should happen before/after calling it.

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