commerce_reconcile_refunds

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

The description adds useful scope/auth context by stating the call routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope. Annotations already flag destructive=true, so the lack of side-effect detail is partially mitigated, but the description never indicates what kinds of changes reconcile_refunds may make.

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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place: the first names the action, the second gives dispatch/scoping context, and the Args section maps to both parameters. No filler or repeated schema content.

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 output schema covers return structure, and annotations cover destructive/read-only traits, so the description need not restate those. But it lacks the domain meaning of reconcile_refunds, when to invoke it, and what a successful run implies, which is material for a destructive tool named with an opaque gerund.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This is meaningful beyond the schema's bare types/defaults, though it omits what structured inputs are expected or any example format.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Run the commerce domain agent action `reconcile_refunds`." It also clarifies this is a dispatcher-routed invocation under JWT/tenant/company scope. It does not, however, explain what reconcile_refunds actually accomplishes or how it differs from generic dispatch_domain_agent or other finance/refund siblings.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dispatch_domain_agent, commerce_* actions, finance_reconciliation_sweep, or company_refunds. It explains routing mechanics but not the conditions or scenarios that should trigger reconcile_refunds. Agents are left to infer applicability from the action name.

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