send_payment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions automatic detection and optimal routing but lacks details on failure behavior, idempotency, reversibility, balance checks, or permissions. This is minimal transparency for a financial mutation 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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes specific examples. Every word contributes value, and it efficiently covers the key points without redundancy.

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 complexity (5 params, 1 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers recipient types and routing but misses error handling, success indication, and prerequisites. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the concept of 'optimal payment rail' but otherwise repeats the recipient type info already in the schema. It does not provide format constraints or usage hints beyond the schema, so no extra value.

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 clearly states the action (send a payment), the resource (any recipient), and specifies the recipient types with examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being the general payment router that auto-detects recipient type and routes optimally.

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 description implies this is the universal payment tool but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus the specialized sibling tools like pay_lightning_invoice or send_to_lightning_address. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is given.

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