prepare_uniswap_v3_burn

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces irreversibility with 'destroys the position NFT (irreversible)'. It also discloses the refusal conditions and the exact prerequisite state, adding value beyond 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?

Three sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose, then constraints, then sequence. Every sentence provides crucial information without redundancy. Highly efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, constraints, sequence, and error behavior. However, it does not describe the output (e.g., unsigned transaction object). Given no output schema, a brief mention of what the tool returns would enhance completeness.

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 33% (only tokenId described). The description adds meaning for tokenId (must be owned, fully drained) but does not elaborate on wallet or chain. While chain has an enum and default, the description could have added clarity on their roles.

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 it builds an unsigned Uniswap V3 LP burn transaction and destroys the position NFT. It distinguishes from siblings like prepare_uniswap_v3_decrease_liquidity and prepare_uniswap_v3_collect by specifying the sequence and that it's the final step.

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 says hard-refuses unless position is fully drained (liquidity=0, tokensOwed=0). Provides the required sequence (decrease → collect → burn) and notes that error messages name the next step. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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