prepare_uniswap_v3_burn

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that burning destroys the NFT irreversibly and clarifies refusal conditions (liquidity==0, tokensOwed==0). This goes beyond annotations by detailing failure modes, but could further explain idempotency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and irreversibility. The structure is efficient, with no filler. Every sentence adds value: purpose, refusal conditions, usage sequence.

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 complex destructive tool, the description covers the flow, prerequisites (fully drained), and ties to sibling tools. No output schema exists, so return values are not needed. It lacks mention of gas or confirmation requirements, but the main context is sufficient for the agent to decide.

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 33% (only tokenId described). The description adds crucial context for tokenId: must be owned by wallet and position fully drained. However, wallet and chain parameters are not elaborated beyond their schema types/enums, so the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 explicitly states it builds an unsigned Uniswap V3 LP burn transaction and destroys the position NFT irreversibly. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like prepare_uniswap_v3_collect and prepare_uniswap_v3_decrease_liquidity by specifying it as the final step in the close-out sequence.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: only after decreasing liquidity and collecting fees. It gives the standard sequence (decrease → collect → burn) and states that the tool hard-refuses unless the position is fully drained, with error messages naming the next step. This helps the agent avoid misuse.

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