lightning_create

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: a mnemonic is generated and shown only once, encrypted with the password, and persisted to ~/.aibtc/lightning/keystore.json. However it omits important operational facts — behavior on repeat calls (overwrite vs. error), whether the mnemonic is recoverable afterwards, and whether the password is unrecoverable if lost.

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 core capability, side effects, storage path, and return value are packed into two front-loaded sentences with no waste. The trailing `earning_opportunities` tip is mild filler that does not serve tool selection.

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 2-parameter creation tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is created, the irreversible 'shown once' mnemonic, where the keystore lives, and what the call returns. Edge-case behavior around pre-existing wallets is the main missing piece.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds only light context: `password` is used to encrypt the mnemonic, and `name` labels the wallet. It does not expand on naming rules or password strength beyond the schema's minLength=8.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new embedded Lightning wallet') plus the underlying mechanism (BIP39 mnemonic + Spark SDK), which implicitly separates it from sibling tools like lightning_import or wallet_create. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 only usage direction is a tangential tip pointing at `earning_opportunities`, which has nothing to do with choosing this tool. There is no guidance on when to create vs. import (lightning_import), no prerequisite about needing a password up front, and no note on what to do if a keystore already exists.

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