commerce_reconcile_refunds

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

The description mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides some behavioral context. However, without annotations, it fails to disclose whether the action is destructive, read-only, or if it has side effects (e.g., modifying refunds). The transparent scope info is useful but incomplete.

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 concise at three lines, but it sacrifices substance. It front-loads the action name but fails to earn its place by omitting key details. It could be expanded slightly to include purpose and usage notes without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite having an output schema (context signal), the description is incomplete. The tool is a generic action dispatcher, but the action `reconcile_refunds` remains unexplained. The agent lacks understanding of what inputs are needed (e.g., which parameters to fill) and what the output represents. The description does not compensate for the complexity of the underlying action.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies `message` as 'free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs'. Given 0% schema description coverage, this help is needed but still sparse. The agent knows the parameters' roles but lacks specifics on expected format or constraints.

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 'Run the commerce domain agent action `reconcile_refunds`' does not explain what reconciling refunds entails. It only states it runs an action, leaving the agent to guess the purpose. The title is null, and the action name alone is insufficient for clear understanding.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many commerce tools (e.g., commerce_chat, commerce_revenue_by_channel), but the description does not differentiate `reconcile_refunds` from them, nor does it state prerequisites or scenarios.

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