İade Reddi / Sorun Bildirimi Oluştur (createClaimIssue)

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It warns that the action is irreversible and directly affects the customer, and explains post-action tracking via rejectedpackageinfo field. This provides critical behavioral context beyond the input schema.

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 a single paragraph in Turkish, but it is efficient: includes a warning, key conditions, and references to other tools. Could be structured with bullet points for readability, but it is not overly verbose.

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?

Adequately covers input and behavioral aspects, but lacks information about the response (e.g., what is returned on success, error scenarios). No output schema exists, so description should mention expected output for completeness. Also no mention of rate limits or permissions.

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%, but the description adds significant value by explaining how to obtain each parameter value (e.g., claimId from getClaims, claimIssueReasonId from get_claim_issue_reasons), file attachment exceptions, and the 500-character limit for description. Enhances agent understanding substantially.

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 creates a return rejection/issue notification, specifies it applies to items in WaitingInAction status, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like trendyol_approve_claim_items which approves claims.

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?

Explicit conditions provided: only for WaitingInAction status, file attachment required except for specific reasons, and a note about reason 2101. References to use trendyol_get_claim_issue_reasons for reason IDs. Does not explicitly state when NOT to use, but implied by the status constraint.

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