manage_returns

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It labels the tool as a 'guarded write' but fails to elaborate on what guards exist, what side effects occur, or what the hosted endpoint's behavior entails. The stub nature is transparent, but the actual hosted behavior remains opaque.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's type and purpose. Every word carries meaning, and there is no redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured with explicit sections, but given the brevity, it remains 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 the complexity (guarded write with 5 params, no output schema) and the fact that it's an introspection stub, the description fails to provide sufficient context about the actual hosted tool's behavior, such as what the response looks like or how to chain it with other tools. The local stub purpose is clear, but completeness for real-world usage 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?

All 5 parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond reiterating 'guarded write' context. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description neither adds nor subtracts value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as related to MCF return authorization ('[Fulfillment / guarded write] MCF return authorization'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_returns' (read-only) and 'create_mcf_order' (order creation). However, it does not explicitly contrast with these siblings, and the mention of 'introspection stub' adds context but slightly dilutes the core purpose.

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 only usage guidance is 'Hosted endpoint only; this local stdio server is an introspection stub,' which tells the agent not to expect functional behavior locally. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to authorize a return vs. look up returns), nor any prerequisites or conditions.

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