radiant_burn_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the key behavioral facts: permanence ('Permanently burn'), the exact burn mechanism (OP_FALSE OP_RETURN with Glyph envelope), and an authentication prerequisite ('Requires a WIF private key'). It does not mention return values or fee side effects, but the destructive behavior itself is well covered.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, the mechanism/effect, and when to use it. No filler, no redundant restating of schema fields.

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 description covers purpose, mechanism, permanence, verifiability, and authentication, which is strong for a destructive tool with no annotations. However, with no output schema, it does not state what the call returns (e.g., txid or broadcast result), and it is slightly imprecise about the key_alias alternative to wif.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds protocol-level context but no per-parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('burn'), a specific resource ('Glyph token'), a protocol identifier ('protocol 6 explicit burn'), and the exact on-chain effect ('spends the token UTXO into an OP_FALSE OP_RETURN output'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from token transfer and other token-related 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?

Explicitly positions the tool for retiring tokens ('Use this to retire tokens cleanly') and supports that with verifiability and on-chain recording. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, but the intended use case is clearly conveyed.

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