deploy_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the node runs on the user's own server (non-custodial), returns a node ID, and requires manual wallet setup. It does not mention potential failures, permissions beyond the API key, or rate limits, but covers essential 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 very concise—four short sentences that front-load the main action. Every sentence adds value: what it does, non-custodial nature, return value, manual wallet setup, and follow-up tool. No wasted 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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main workflow: deployment, return value, manual setup, and status checking via sibling tool. It misses potential error handling or permission details but is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and next steps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter (e.g., provider enum with cost info is already in schema). Thus, no significant additional value.

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 it deploys a Lightning node (LND + Neutrino) on a VPS, specifying it is non-custodial. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like node_status and the others, which are about different actions (buying credit, calling APIs, etc.).

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 provides a clear usage path: deploy, then complete wallet setup manually in the UI, then use node_status to check progress. It implicitly tells when to use this tool (when deploying a node) and references the sibling tool for follow-up. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives beyond node_status.

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