radiant_create_nft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the 2-transaction commit+reveal pattern, that two transaction IDs and a tokenRef are returned, and that a private key is required. The phrase 'Requires a WIF private key' is slightly more prescriptive than the schema's wif-OR-key_alias contract, so this is not perfect.

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: the operation, the transaction pattern, the return values, and the prerequisite. Information is front-loaded with no 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with a rich schema but no output schema or annotations, the description covers the key non-schema facts: the commit+reveal flow and the returned tokenRef. It could additionally state fee/funding implications or post-mint visibility, but the core invocation contract is present.

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 no param-level detail beyond repeating the WIF requirement; it does not clarify when to provide wif versus key_alias or how attributes/image map to the NFT, leaving that to the schema.

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 opening sentence is a specific verb+resource statement: 'Mint a new Glyph Non-Fungible Token (NFT) on Radiant.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling operations such as radiant_create_ft, radiant_transfer_token, and radiant_burn_token.

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 gives clear context—use when minting a new NFT on Radiant—and states a key prerequisite ('Requires a WIF private key'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, which prevents a 5, but the intended use is not left to inference.

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