refund_order

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains return values (refund GID and total amount), restockType behaviors, and the notify option. However, it does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or authorization requirements, which are common behavioral concerns.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently covers key details without unnecessary repetition. Minor improvement could be made by structuring it into bullet points for quick scanning.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, when to use it, parameter behaviors, return values, and customer notification. No obvious gaps.

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%, but the description adds value by clarifying when to omit refundLineItems, explaining the restockType enum in practical terms, and describing shipping options. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 tool's purpose is clearly stated: it issues a refund for specific line items, shipping, or both. It distinguishes from the sibling tool cancel_order by explicitly noting that refund_order is for partial refunds, while cancel_order with refund=true handles full refunds.

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 explicitly outlines when to use this tool versus cancel_order, and provides scenarios such as refunding a single item, shipping, or an adjustment. It also explains the restockType controls and the notify parameter.

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