withdraw

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the need for an operator key and a cooldown period, but does not mention return values, failure modes, or that it is a destructive action (funds leave the operator account).

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 efficient sentences: first defines the action, second adds critical constraints. No superfluous words.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose and a key constraint, but lacks information on return values, error conditions, or behavior on success/failure. Some completeness is provided by the 'security cooldown' hint.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'invoice', which is already well-described as 'BOLT11 invoice to pay out to'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('withdraw funds'), the source ('operator account'), and destination ('external Lightning invoice'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pay_invoice' and 'claim_lnurl_withdraw' via the 'operator account' qualifier.

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?

Only implicit guidance is provided via prerequisites ('REQUIRES OPERATOR KEY') and constraints ('Subject to security cooldown'). No explicit statement on when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use.

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