vaultix_create_refund

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action and partial refund capability. It lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a destructive/mutative operation (implied but not explicit), permission requirements, rate limits, idempotency, refund processing time, or what happens on success/failure. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with two clear sentences that front-load the main purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (destructiveness, auth needs), error conditions, return values, or usage context relative to siblings. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for safe/effective use is lacking.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal value by clarifying 'amount in cents for partial refund', which slightly elaborates on the schema's 'optional, for partial refund'. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., if amount is omitted, is it a full refund?) or provide examples beyond what the schema offers.

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 the action ('Create a refund') and target resource ('for a paid charge'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'vaultix_cancel_charge' or 'vaultix_get_refund'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'vaultix_list_refunds' or other refund-related tools beyond the basic verb distinction.

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 like 'vaultix_cancel_charge' or 'vaultix_get_refund'. The description mentions partial refunds but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., charge must be paid) or exclusions (e.g., cannot refund canceled charges).

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