bump-fee

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses the CPFP mechanism and that it affects all unconfirmed transactions, returning the child transaction ID. It lacks mention of prerequisites like sufficient balance, but is fairly transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action, method, and return value. It could mention potential limitations (e.g., required available balance) but is mostly complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the only parameter (feerateSatByte). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'higher fee rate', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (makes unconfirmed transactions use a higher fee rate), the method (CPFP), and the resource (unconfirmed transactions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle payments, invoices, channels, and other operations.

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 when there are unconfirmed transactions that need a higher fee rate, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., RBF) or when not to use it.

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