create_refund

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the amount constraint (must not exceed original) and minor units, but fails to mention side effects, idempotency, or what happens to the original payment. This 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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded action 'Refund a paid payment request'. No wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 basic purpose and a key constraint, but for a 4-parameter required mutation tool with no output schema, it lacks details on return value, error cases, and partial refund behavior. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds the critical constraint that the amount must not exceed the original, which is not in the schema. It also reiterates the minor units, but that is already in the schema. The added value justifies a 4.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Refund' and the resource 'paid payment request', distinguishing it from sibling tools like void_payment_request and pay_payment_request. It is specific but could be more precise about the scope (e.g., only for paid status).

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 refunding a previously paid request by stating 'must not exceed the original', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like void_payment_request. No exclusion criteria are given.

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