orders_refund_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'full or partial refund' and 'against a paid order.' It omits side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, failure behavior, and reversibility—critical for a financial mutation. The minimal detail fails to adequately prepare the agent for invocation.

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?

A single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and includes necessary qualifiers ('full or partial', 'paid'). No wasted words; it 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?

Although the parameter schema is complete, the tool is a financial operation with no output schema and no annotations. The description lacks return-value details, failure scenarios, prerequisite conditions beyond 'paid', and system behavior (e.g., whether refund is immediate, partial refund limits). This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 100%: both parameters are documented ('Amount to refund; omit for a full refund.' and 'Order to refund.'). The description's mention of 'full or partial' adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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: 'Issue a full or partial refund against a paid order.' It names a specific verb ('issue'), the resource ('refund'), and the target ('order'), while qualifying with 'paid' to prevent misuse. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like orders_cancel_order or orders_update_order.

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?

Usage context is implied: the tool is for refunding paid orders, with 'paid' acting as a precondition. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., when to cancel vs. refund) or state when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer from the wording.

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