lightning_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the wallet is encrypted locally at ~/.aibtc/lightning/keystore.json and stored in an embedded Spark-backed store. However, it omits critical mutation behavior such as whether an existing wallet is overwritten, whether the wallet must be locked, or what happens on invalid mnemonic/password.

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 import description is front-loaded and efficient. However, the trailing 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is unrelated to invoking this tool and does not earn its place in the definition.

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 security-sensitive import operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the source format, storage location, and encryption. It still leaves out meaningful operational context such as replacement behavior, prerequisite wallet state, and error conditions, which an agent would need before calling it.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters, including the BIP39 mnemonic and password minimum length. The description only repeats that the import is from a BIP39 mnemonic and adds no syntax, validation, or format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb (import), resource (Lightning wallet), source (BIP39 mnemonic), and destination (embedded Spark-backed store). It implicitly distinguishes from lightning_create by specifying an 'existing' wallet, but it does not name the sibling tool or explain the distinction explicitly.

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 phrase 'Import an existing Lightning wallet' implies usage when a mnemonic already exists, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus lightning_create or wallet_import. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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