lw_send

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and for a fund-moving operation this is thin. It does not say that the transfer is irreversible, who pays network fees or how much is deducted, whether the call blocks for confirmation, or what it returns (a txid presumably). Only the implicit 'this spends real money' is conveyed.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and target front-loaded; nothing superfluous. It is efficient, though the brevity is more under-specification than disciplined concision given how much a payment tool needs to disclose.

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 five-parameter value-transfer tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source of behavioral context — and it supplies almost none. An agent cannot learn from it whether fees apply, what confirmation is required, or what happens on failure/insufficient funds, which is inadequate for the risk level.

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 wallet_name, address, amount (in satoshis), password, and password_file are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that — no note on amount units/limits, no explanation of the password vs. password_file tradeoff — so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Send L-BTC to an address" states a specific verb (send) and a specific resource (L-BTC, i.e. Liquid Bitcoin) plus the destination. That is clear enough to act on, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as lw_send_asset, btc_send, or lightning_send, so an agent must infer the difference from naming conventions alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing about when to prefer this over lw_send_asset for other Liquid assets or btc_send for on-chain Bitcoin. No preconditions are stated either (wallet must exist, must be funded, may need a password), leaving the agent to discover the selection logic on its own.

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