withdraw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so well: it discloses the fee schedule, 10-sat minimum, routing-reserve refund, key requirement, and cooldown. It does not mention the return value or failure modes, but the main behavioral constraints are clearly stated.

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 with no filler; every clause adds decision-relevant information. The fee rules, minimum, refund behavior, and security constraints are compactly grouped, and the operator-key requirement is appropriately emphasized.

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 one-parameter withdrawal tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, fees, minimum, and refund behavior—enough for a correct invocation. The only notable gap is what the call returns or how errors surface, which is a minor omission for such a simple operation.

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 the single invoice parameter is already documented as a BOLT11 invoice. The description adds meaningful context by specifying 'external' and by stating the 10-sat minimum, which helps the agent avoid submitting invalid or unsupported payment requests.

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 action—'Withdraw funds from the operator account to an external Lightning invoice'—with a clear resource and target. This differentiates it from withdrawal-adjacent siblings like create_withdraw_link and pay_invoice by naming the source account and the external 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 conditions: requires operator key, is subject to a security cooldown, and has minimum and fee constraints. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the external-invoice and operator-account framing gives an agent enough context to select this tool among payment siblings.

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