ls_refund_subscription_invoice

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds 'This is irreversible' reinforcing the destructive nature. It also mentions the refund amount is in cents, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction with 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?

Two short sentences, each serving a purpose: first states action and resource, second adds crucial caveat and unit. No unnecessary words, well front-loaded.

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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential: purpose, irreversibility, and amount unit. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., invoice must be paid) or impact on invoice status, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds a clarifying example for the amount parameter ('e.g. 1000 = $10.00'), which reinforces the schema but does not add substantially new meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Issue a refund' and the resource 'subscription invoice', distinguishing it from the sibling ls_refund_order which refunds orders. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Description mentions irreversibility but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. While the tool name and sibling list imply usage for subscription invoices, no direct comparison to alternatives like ls_refund_order is given.

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