lightning_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature (payment) and mentions fees and limits, but does not address failure modes, reversibility, or post-payment confirmation. While adequate, it could be more transparent about behavioral traits.

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 with no fluff, immediately stating the purpose and then providing fees and limits. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the key action.

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 no output schema and the complexity of a reverse submarine swap payment, the description covers essential elements (what it pays, fees, limits) but lacks details on outcome confirmation, failure reasons, or time expectations. It is mostly complete for a payment 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions (invoice, password, amount_sats, wallet_name). The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only repeating that the invoice can be BOLT11 or Lightning Address. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool pays a Lightning invoice or Lightning Address using L-BTC from a Liquid wallet, specifying the mechanism (reverse submarine swap). It uniquely identifies this tool among siblings like lightning_receive (receive), lw_send (Liquid asset send), and btc_send (Bitcoin on-chain).

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 usage for paying Lightning invoices/addresses with L-BTC, and provides fees and limits, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling list provides context but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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