revertCreditsFromChild

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

While the destructiveHint annotation already signals a mutating operation, the description adds context about the refund being calculated at the child's current rate and matching the original charge, which explains the absence of a rate parameter. This goes beyond the annotation to clarify expected behavior.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence provides useful information: what it does, how the calculation works, and a usage tip. No filler 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?

Given the destructive nature and the presence of sibling tools (transferCreditsToChild, calculateCreditOperation), the description adequately covers the necessary context: it states the operation, explains the rate behavior, and references the calculate endpoint. The lack of an output schema is acceptable, and the description does not need to explain return values.

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 both parameters (from_organization_id and minutes), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds a note that no rate is passed, which is helpful but not essential given the schema's completeness.

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 specifies the action ('take back unused minutes') and the resource context (from child organization to reseller balance). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tool transferCreditsToChild by indicating the reverse direction, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 guidance to use the calculate endpoint first to preview the refund, which is a valuable usage instruction. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the clear context and mention of the preview step are sufficient for agent decision-making.

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