refund-create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does not mention that this is an irreversible money-moving mutation, what permissions or payment state are required, or how errors behave. The important warning about the notify flag sending real email/SMS appears only in the schema, so an agent reading just the description would not learn about the customer-facing side effect.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifiers (full/partial, restocking, shipping) arrive immediately. Nothing redundant is included.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the tool has six parameters including a nested line-item array — a moderately complex mutation. The rich schema compensates for much of the parameter detail, but the description leaves the agent without the mutation's risk profile and side effects that this class of tool warrants.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented in the input schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description echoes 'optional restocking and shipping refund,' which nudges toward the relevant parameters but adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource (create a refund for an order) and scopes it with 'full or partial' plus the optional restocking and shipping aspects. It is clearly distinguishable from read-side siblings like get-order-refund-details and from order-cancel, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 sentence describes what the tool does but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., order-cancel vs. refund). The only real decision guidance — that omitting both refundLineItems and shipping yields a zero-amount note-only refund — lives in the schema, not in the description.

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