wdk_mpp_pay

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes return values (credential JSON, payment_hash) and optional fields for L402. Lacks details on side effects (funds movement), idempotency, or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with main action, no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and returns.

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?

Covers core workflow and return values. Lacks information on failure modes, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., wallet state). Acceptable for a payment tool but not fully 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. Description adds value by explaining each parameter's origin and role (invoice from mpp_request_challenge, macaroon/challenge_id for L402), beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Pay an MPP Lightning challenge' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the credential workflow (from mpp_request_challenge to mpp_submit_credential), setting it apart from tools like wdk_pay_invoice.

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?

Provides clear context: pass invoice from mpp_request_challenge, returns credential for mpp_submit_credential. Doesn't explicitly say when not to use, but the workflow is well explained.

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