partner_refund

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses auth requirements and alternative tool but does not describe behavior beyond being a refund path (e.g., side effects, response format, or success/failure indicators). Inferred as destructive but not explicit.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loaded with purpose. Every word earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists but description fails to compensate for unexplained parameters. Auth guidance is good but lacks parameter details, making the tool ambiguous for an agent.

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?

0% schema coverage and description provides no explanation for 5 parameters (robox_partner_id, op_key, auth_headers, refund_sum, receipt). Only vaguely references 'RoboxPartnerId' and 'auth headers' without mapping to schema names or semantics.

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 it is an 'Alternative refund path via Partner API (for CPA / SaaS integrators)' and distinguishes it from the merchant-only tool 'refund_create'. The verb 'refund' and resource 'path' are specific.

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 when to use: partners only; merchant-only users should prefer 'refund_create'. Also mentions required auth headers, providing clear guidance on prerequisites.

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