Respond to return

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

The description highlights that the action 'changes live shop data' and 'requires the seller's explicit confirmation', adding behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation. It does not contradict annotations.

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 with two short paragraphs, first stating the core function and second a critical warning. It is front-loaded but could include more parameter information without losing conciseness.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description lacks essential details about parameters like confirmation_token and how to specify partial refunds. It is not sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema description coverage at only 29%, the description should explain the six undocumented parameters (e.g., reason, currency, platform, confirmation_token). It only mentions 'partial amount' which relates to refund_amount, leaving most parameters unexplained.

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 states 'Accept or reject a return/refund request (optionally a partial amount)', specifying the exact action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like respond_to_cancellation and respond_to_dispute by focusing on returns/refunds.

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?

It explicitly requires the seller's explicit approval and confirmation before execution, which is a critical usage condition. However, it does not provide when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like get_return for viewing, so guidance is slightly incomplete.

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