Seller reject return

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint) by noting the 'Refuses if already refunded' condition and that inspection_notes is shared with the buyer. This enriches the understanding of side effects without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences, direct and free of fluff. It front-loads the purpose and then adds a condition, making it easy to scan and understand immediately.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what action, when it applies, and a key constraint. It does not mention post-rejection status changes, but this is minor and covered by the destructiveHint annotation. Overall, it is complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema with clear semantics: return_id is a UUID identifying the return, inspection_notes includes a length constraint and explains it is the reason shown to the buyer. The tool description also reiterates that inspection_notes is required, aligning perfectly with 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 states the action ('Reject a return'), the context ('after inspection'), and a key condition ('Refuses if the return has already refunded'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like seller_accept_return, returns_initiate, and returns_get.

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?

It provides contextual guidance by specifying 'after inspection' and the refusal condition. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the action and condition make it clear when to use this tool. Slightly more explicit comparison could elevate this, but it is already informative.

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