jan3_rebind_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly labels the tool as DESTRUCTIVE, describes the side effect (moves inbound Lightning delivery to wallet_name, stops delivery to previously-bound wallet), and explains the no-op case (already_bound=true). It also clarifies that ln_username is not the email and that prior JAN3 login is required.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, destructive warning, use cases, step-by-step procedure, and important clarifications. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and then provides necessary detail.

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 (two-step handshake, destructive, requires prior login, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains preview outputs (ln_username, current_fingerprint->new_fingerprint, warning), the meaning of already_bound, and the distinction between Lightning Address and email. An agent has all the information needed to decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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?

Although the input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, the description adds significant procedural context: it explains the two-step flow for confirm (false=preview, true=execute), notes that wallet_name defaults to 'default', and clarifies that email identifies the account/session. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: re-binding the account's Lightning Address to a different local wallet. It uses a specific verb ('Re-bind') and resource ('Lightning Address to a different local wallet'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like jan3_enable_lightning_address by noting it is 'the only path that passes override_fingerprint'. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear when-to-use scenarios: when the account is bound to a wallet you no longer have (new seed, old JAN3 account) or to switch which wallet receives funds. It also gives a detailed two-step handshake procedure, explicitly stating not to pass confirm=true first and to show the warning for consent. This guides correct invocation and prevents misuse.

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