create_withdraw_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the browser/QR behavior, the sweep-full-balance behavior, the 10-sats minimum after fees, and the operator key requirement. It does not mention return values or link expiry.

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?

Three focused sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by behavioral details and a clear requirement, all in appropriately compact form.

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?

With one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers most operational essentials. However, it does not state what the API returns (e.g., the actual withdraw link) or whether the link expires or is single-use, which could matter to an agent.

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% and the description reinforces the one parameter's meaning. It adds useful nuance about 'minimum 10 sats after fees' and clarifies the sweep behavior when amount_sats is omitted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create an LNURL-withdraw link for the operator to receive funds.' It clearly defines the operation and distinguishes it from plain withdraw/invoice tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 usage context: the operator receives funds via a wallet-scanable QR code, with optional sweeping by omitting amount_sats. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the intended scenario is evident.

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