createPushPaywallIntent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that owner wallet keys are passed in the body, but does not state side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the intent is immediately redeemable. The mutating nature is only implied by 'create'.

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 a single compact line, which is efficient, but it is more of an API endpoint label than a structured explanation. It contains no sentences and lacks logical breakdown of purpose, usage, and parameters.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely under-specified. It provides no information about the request/response flow, prerequisites, or return value, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Only 1 of 8 parameters has schema documentation (13% coverage). The description adds a vague reference to 'owner wallet keys in body', which hints at the owner* parameters, but does not explain repo, bridgeUrl, payerPubkey, or the LNBits/Blink parameters. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies the action as creating an invoice/payment intent for pay-to-push, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pushToBridge and bounty invoice tools. However, the phrasing is cryptic, relying on HTTP jargon ('POST') and the action name 'create_intent' instead of a plain-language verb.

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?

No explicit usage guidance or alternative tools are mentioned. The phrase 'invoice for pay-to-push' implies the tool is used when a push requires payment, but there is no context on when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools like getPushPaywallStatus or syncRepoPushPolicy.

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