agentpact.request_refund

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, so the description is not required to reiterate state changes. It adds value by explaining the specific conditions for refunds (delivery failure or dispute resolution), which aids appropriate invocation. It does not cover potential side effects on related entities (e.g., deal status) or discuss authentication needs beyond the schema.

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 sentences: first stating the action and outcome, second providing usage context. No extraneous words or redundancy; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and typical usage scenarios. It could be improved by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., the payment must be funded) or noting that it is a buyer-initiated action. However, given the lack of output schema and simple parameter set, it is largely sufficient.

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 100% schema description coverage, all three parameters are already documented. The description does not add any additional semantic guidance (e.g., format or example values). It simply restates the overall action, so it meets the baseline without extra value.

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 ('request a refund'), the resource ('funded payment intent'), and the outcome ('returning escrowed USDC to buyer's wallet'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying a unique operation not covered by others like 'release_payment' or 'cancel_deal'.

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?

The description provides context on when refunds are typically granted ('when delivery has not been made or dispute resolved'), giving the agent situational awareness. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like 'release_payment', which could be complementary.

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