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

Beyond the annotations (which only mark this as a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive mutation), the description discloses that revenue share adjusts, that confirmation is on by default and can be toggled off, that the call "reaches other people" so the user must confirm each call, and that a Cotlet API key with app access is required. Rich behavioral context for a mutation.

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?

Front-loaded well with the core action first, but the 180-day window and the "revenue share adjusts / works for orders in the last 180 days" points are restated, adding redundancy. Content earns its place but could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers prerequisites (API key/access), side effects (revenue share, optional restocking), constraints (180 days, no dispute), failure handling, and the human-confirmation requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented, including return_to_stock's default and order_id's source. The description's "optionally return the item to stock" merely restates the schema's own wording rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Refund a physical order") and immediately scopes it to "physical" versus digital, which is refunded elsewhere. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like bandcamp_list_merch_orders or mark_order_shipped without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the eligibility window (last 180 days), the exclusion (orders under dispute), and the fallbacks: older orders are refunded manually via PayPal and digital purchases go through Bandcamp Support. This is exactly when-to-use / when-not / alternatives coverage.

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