refund_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation (Escopo write) and usefully describes the 422 requires_confirmation=runway edge case with its remedy (confirm_runway=true), which is exactly the kind of behavioral trap an agent needs. However, it omits auth/permission requirements, irreversibility, and what happens on failure — leaving partial coverage for a mutating tool.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the critical edge case. No wasted words; the only minor loss is that the write-scope disclosure could have been omitted or merged without lowering clarity.

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?

With 5 parameters, zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It covers the purpose and the most important error flow but leaves the revoke parameter (a meaningful enum choice for refunds) and general failure/success behavior undocumented, so an agent cannot fully reason about all valid invocations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning only to confirm_runway (via the 422 re-send with confirm_runway=true instruction). Other parameters — payment_id, amount_cents, reason, and especially the revoke enum (none/subscription/grant) — are left entirely unexplained, so compensation is incomplete.

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 (Estorna/refunds) and resource (pagamento/payment), and adds the total/partial distinction. It clearly differs from read siblings like get_payment, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only close guidance is the 422 retry flow, which is a conditional edge-case instruction rather than a general usage guideline for selecting this tool over siblings.

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