Create a MyFatoorah refund

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true/readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds non-redundant context: the refund is 'real', moves money in live environments, and requires explicit user approval of exact PaymentId and amount. No contradiction with 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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the action and risk, the second provides the mandatory approval guard. There is no filler or redundant restatement of schema content.

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 output schema and destructive annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it does, that it moves real money, and the safety precondition. It could additionally mention duplicate/retry behavior since idempotentHint=false, but for a refund creation call this is a minor gap.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the required parameters: 'full or partial' explains amount and 'confirm must be true' restates the approval gate. However, it does not help with the five optional parameters such as idempotencyKey, supplierRefundedAmount, or serviceChargeOnCustomer, so compensation is incomplete.

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?

States it creates a real full or partial refund via POST /v3/refunds, a specific verb+resource that is clearly distinct from create_payment and get_refund among siblings. 'Moves money in live environments' reinforces what operation this is.

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?

Gives an explicit call condition ('only after the user explicitly approves the exact PaymentId and amount; confirm must be true'), which tells an agent when it is safe to invoke a destructive refund. It does not name sibling alternatives such as get_refund for verification, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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