nft_burn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Burn (destroy)' communicates that the action is destructive and irreversible, but it does not mention ownership/approval requirements, on-chain transaction implications, gas fees, or confirmation behavior, leaving notable gaps.

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 a single, short, front-loaded sentence: 'Burn (destroy) an NFT token'. Every word is meaningful and there is no wasted text.

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?

This is a simple 2-parameter mutation with no output schema and full schema coverage for parameters, so the description only needs to convey the core action and any critical prerequisites. It conveys the core action ('burn/destroy') but omits ownership prerequisites and what happens after execution, making it minimally complete rather than thorough.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for both required parameters (tokenId and contractAddress). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Burn' with parenthetical 'destroy' and clearly identifies the resource as 'an NFT token'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like nft_transfer, nft_mint, and nft_approve by describing the destructive action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as token ownership or approval. The only implied usage comes from the tool's name and the verb 'Burn'.

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