Refund transaction

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this by leading with 'Destructive write.' It adds a valuable safety instruction to confirm the transaction and amount, and clarifies that partial refunds are possible. However, it does not discuss idempotency or return behavior.

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 with no filler. The destructive-write warning is front-loaded, and the caution is immediately actionable.

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?

With four parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and a financial operation requiring care, the description is not complete. It omits the roles of zenId and idempotencyKey, does not explain refund status effects, and gives no indication of the response. The safety caution helps but is insufficient.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. It references 'transaction' and 'amount' but leaves zenId and idempotencyKey completely unexplained. Even for the mentioned parameters, it adds little beyond what the schema already indicates.

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 action—'return all or part of a payment to the customer'—with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like capture_transaction and cancel_transaction by focusing on refunding funds back to the customer.

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 implies the tool is used to refund a payment, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare it with alternatives such as cancel_transaction for pending payments. The caution 'Confirm the transaction and amount before use' provides a precondition but not usage context.

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