escrow__refund_escrow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'exactly-once' semantics and clarifies that refunding an OPEN escrow is a cancel. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like authentication needs, side effects, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences plus a prefix. Every word serves a purpose, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits return values, prerequisites, error scenarios, and authorization requirements. The tool has moderate complexity with state-based behavior, yet the description is too brief to fully equip 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?

The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% coverage (no descriptions in schema). The description does not mention either parameter, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance for 'reason' or 'escrow_id' beyond their names.

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 (refund), resource (escrow), and allowed states (OPEN/FUNDED/DISPUTED). It also specifies the recipient (payer). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like release_escrow or dispute_escrow, missing an opportunity for clarity.

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 provides state conditions (OPEN/FUNDED/DISPUTED) for when to use the tool, but it does not guide the agent on when to choose this tool over alternatives like release_escrow (likely for payee) or dispute_escrow. No comparisons are made.

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