firestarter_return

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals side effects, and the description adds concrete details ('creates a return shipping label and processes the refund'), going beyond the annotation. It does not mention irreversibility or additional consequences (e.g., restocking), but the combination of annotation and description is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key effects, with a clear usage directive. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description captures the essential behavior. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation, tracking number) or any prerequisites (e.g., payment status), leaving some ambiguity for an agent that needs to interpret the response.

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?

Both parameters (execution_id and reason) are fully documented in the JSON schema, so the description does not need to repeat their semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.

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 the primary verb ('Initiate a return') and the resource ('purchased order'), and specifies the two main effects: creating a return shipping label and processing a refund. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like firestarter_cancel, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 explicit triggers ('Use when a buyer wants to return an item, get a refund, or reports a problem'), which gives an agent a clear condition to select this tool. However, it does not contrast with alternatives like firestarter_cancel or firestarter_disputes, so the agent must infer differences from the names alone.

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