create_refund

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that refunds move money irreversibly and that retrying without an idempotencyKey could cause double-refund. This is excellent behavioral transparency.

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: first sentence states purpose and key parameter facts, second sentence explains behavioral reasoning. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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?

All 5 required parameters are covered in description or schema. The description explains critical behavior. However, no output schema exists and the description doesn't hint at the return value, which is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining MINOR units with an example (2500 = $25.00) and emphasizing why idempotencyKey is critical, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 starts with 'Refund a paid payment request', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like pay_payment_request and void_payment_request.

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 explains the need for an idempotencyKey due to irreversible money movement, which provides guidance on safe usage. It implicitly differentiates from voiding but could explicitly state when to refund vs other actions.

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