delete_order_refund

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint:true. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it removes the refund entry but leaves the payment intact, and it warns to use caution. This meaningfully augments the structured annotation.

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 consists of two concise sentences, immediately starting with the action. Every phrase serves a purpose, with no redundant or fluff content.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects for a destructive tool: what it deletes, what it does not affect, and a warning. However, since there is no output schema, it does not describe the response format or the effect of the 'fields' parameter, leaving a minor gap.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, including the meaning of 'force' (must be true to permanently delete). The description itself does not add parameter-specific details, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Delete' and a resource 'refund record from an order,' clearly distinguishing it from refund creation (create_order_refund) and listing (list_order_refunds). It also adds the key clarification that payment is not reversed, which defines its unique purpose.

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 context that the operation does not reverse payment and includes a caution to use with care. This implies when to use the tool (to remove a refund entry) and when not (if payment reversal is intended). No alternative deletion tool exists among siblings, so explicit exclusion is not needed.

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