refund_order

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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: notes no buyer request required, warns about amount unit differences by currency, and states the refund must not exceed remaining refundable amount. These details complement the destructiveHint annotation without contradiction.

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?

Single paragraph, front-loaded with primary action, no redundant words. Every sentence adds essential information (how to use, unit warning, when to omit amount). Highly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers usage and warnings. It does not specify the response format or potential errors, but the main behavioral aspects (destructive nature, unit handling) are well addressed. Slight gap on success/error handling, but not critical for a mutation tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the amount parameter's unit dependency on currency with concrete examples (fiat vs stablecoin), reinforcing the need to check the order first. This exceeds the baseline.

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 tool directly refunds an order without a buyer request, specifying the verb 'refund' and resource 'order'. This distinguishes it from siblings like approve_refund and reject_refund, which handle buyer-initiated requests.

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?

Explicitly says to omit amount for full refund, and to read the order first to check currency. Provides guidance on parameters (orderId required, amount optional with warning about units). Implicitly contrasts with refund request tools by stating 'no buyer request needed'.

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