lightning_lock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that the Spark session is discarded from memory and that L402 auto-pay breaks until unlock. It does not say whether the call is idempotent, whether funds remain safe, or whether re-locking an already-locked wallet errors — minor but real gaps for a state-mutating tool.

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 first two sentences are tight and front-loaded — effect then consequence. The trailing tip promoting `earning_opportunities` is unrelated to locking and reads as cross-sell copy that dilutes an otherwise efficient 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 zero-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary side effects an agent needs to decide and act. Return shape and error behavior are absent, but the critical operational consequence (auto-pay outage) is stated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter discussion is needed or expected.

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 ("Lock") and a specific resource ("the Lightning wallet"), plus a second concrete effect ("drop the Spark session from memory"). The "Lightning" qualifier is what separates it from the sibling wallet_lock, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 consequence clause ("L402 auto-pay will stop working until the wallet is unlocked again") gives a clear decision signal for when locking is and isn't appropriate. It stops short of explicitly naming lightning_unlock or wallet_lock as alternatives or stating prerequisites, so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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