radiant_update_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the direction of transfer but does not disclose side effects, whether the channel must already exist, whether the balances are mutated, whether the update is off-chain or on-chain, or what happens to the previous state.

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 with no filler. It communicates the purpose and the payer-to-payee direction efficiently, and every phrase contributes to understanding the operation.

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 state-changing tool with nine required parameters and no output schema or annotations, this description is incomplete. It omits expected return behavior, prerequisites, whether the call mutates channel state permanently, and any nonce or timeout usage context that would help an agent invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so all nine parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds a payer/payee framing that reinforces the transfer semantics, but it does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource ('Update a micropayment channel state') and explains the core action as transferring photons from payer agentA to payee agentB. It is clearly distinct from channel-opening tools like radiant_open_channel, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as radiant_open_channel or transfer-related tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues beyond the tool's name, leaving the agent to infer usage from the operation name alone.

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