Simulate a customer refund for a given amount and reason, validating input data without processing real payments. Solve testing needs by triggering a mock refund workflow.
Simulate a refund; no real money moves
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | ||
| reason | Yes | ||
| customer_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the most important behavioral fact: 'no real money moves'. However, it does not explain whether a simulated refund record is persisted, whether a refund ID or result is returned, or what side effects may occur beyond the monetary aspect.
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 very concise and front-loaded, immediately stating that this is a simulation and emphasizing the no-money-moves guarantee. It contains no filler words. It could be slightly expanded with usage or side-effect detail, but as written it is clear and easy to scan.
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 three required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only one sibling tool, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the simulation returns, whether it validates a real customer, or how it integrates with get_customer_record. An agent would need to guess at the operational contract.
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 0%, and the description adds no detail about customer_id, amount, or reason. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory eb purpose, but the description does not clarify units, expected source of the values, or how each parameter affects the simulation.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Simulate a refund'. It also clarifies the key distinction from a real refund with 'no real money moves'. This clearly separates it from the sibling tool get_customer_record, which is a retrieval operation.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies a testing or simulation context but does not mention alternatives or conditions that would make this tool preferable. The sibling tool is not referenced at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.