bountyClaimWithdraw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions that it is a POST request, implying a mutation, but says nothing about side effects, authorization requirements, reversibility, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a tool handling funds.

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 short and under-specified. While it is not verbose, it sacrifices necessary details for brevity, making it an under-specified snippet rather than a useful, front-loaded explanation.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose, parameters, behavior, or return value, leaving the agent with almost no contextual understanding.

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 schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no parameter information. It mentions 'recipient' generically but does not explain any of the fields like lnurl, bridgeUrl, issueRepo, or how they relate to the action. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantics.

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 'claim withdraw to recipient' is vague and unclear. It does not convey the exact action: is it claiming a withdrawal or withdrawing a claim? The endpoint path adds some context, but the purpose remains ambiguous and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like bountyCreateWithdraw.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the endpoint and action, with no context about prerequisites, related tools, or appropriate scenarios. This leaves the agent without guidance on selection.

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