Refund Deposit

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral detail that the deposit status transitions to 'refunded', confirming the side effect. This context is consistent with annotations and provides additional clarity.

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 concise at two sentences plus a bilingual example. It is front-loaded with the key action and effect. The Spanish repetition slightly reduces conciseness but does not significantly impact 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no destructive effects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It states the status change and provides an example, which is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description's example reinforces the use of 'id' and 'reason' but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Refund a deposit back to the client') and the specific effect ('Transitions the deposit status to 'refunded''). It includes a concrete example and distinguishes from siblings like 'apply_deposit' and 'create_deposit' by focusing on refunding.

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 description implies the tool's use case (refunding deposits) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'apply_deposit' or 'refund_sale'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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