compose_destroy

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it clarifies that the tool only composes a transaction (not executes it), and highlights the permanence of the action ('permanently destroy'). This is useful behavioral context that the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not fully convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose without any redundant words. It is exactly as concise as needed and easy to parse.

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?

While the description and annotations provide adequate context for the tool's purpose and parameters, there is no mention of the return value or workflow (e.g., that the composed transaction should be passed to broadcast_transaction). Since there is no output schema, this missing workflow detail leaves a gap in completeness, though the sibling tool name implies it.

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 tool description itself does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the overall purpose, but the schema already provides detailed descriptions for all six parameters, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 states the action: 'Compose a transaction to permanently destroy (burn) Counterparty tokens'. It identifies the specific verb (compose), resource (transaction), and action (destroy/burn), which distinguishes it from sibling compose tools like compose_send or compose_dispense.

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 implies usage by stating the burning purpose, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to use compose_send instead) or any exclusions. The intent is clear enough from the wording, but no direct alternative guidance is provided.

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