ln_auth_session

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

The description discloses that it stores/updates and accepts session states active/expired/revoked, but no annotations exist. It does not explain side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior), required permissions, or idempotency. The behavioral disclosure is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 concise with a clear one-liner action, followed by structured Args/Returns. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary 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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers basic purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks context about LNURL-auth and the record-keeping use case, making it minimally complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds basic meaning to parameters: 'Vendor name or domain', 'The LNURL-auth linking key', and session state options. However, it lacks detailed format or validation hints, so it partially compensates.

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 'Store or update an LNURL-auth session record' with a specific verb (store/update) and resource (session record). It distinguishes from sibling ln_auth_lookup which retrieves sessions.

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 implies usage for record-keeping of externally-established sessions but does not explicitly state when to use this over ln_auth_lookup or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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