pay_invoice_with_amount

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or failure modes. This is a significant gap for a 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and condition, with no filler or redundancy. It is easy to parse and directly informative.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or error behavior. For a payment tool, this leaves important gaps for an agent to use it 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?

Schema coverage is 75%, and the schema already describes amount, wallet_id, and payment_request. The tool description adds only the rationale for specifying the amount, not additional syntax or constraints. No extra meaning is provided for the memo parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'Pay' and a specific resource 'Lightning invoice that has no amount specified (open invoice)', and adds 'You specify the amount to send.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pay_invoice, which handles invoices with a fixed amount.

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 explicitly states the condition for using this tool (invoices without an amount), which gives clear context. It does not name alternatives but implies that other tools are used for fixed-amount invoices. No exclusions are mentioned.

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