create_return

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this likely mutates order state, requires an existing order, or has side effects such as initiating a return process.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. The parenthetical handler name adds no functional value and there is no front-loaded explanation of the tool's purpose.

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?

Even for a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what action will occur, what the return value is, or what conditions must be met before calling this tool.

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% and the description adds no meaning to the order_id parameter. The agent only learns that order_id is a required string, but not what it references or how it should be formatted.

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 'create_return (custom handler shop_rules.create_return)' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name and exposes an internal handler path. It does not state what the tool does, what a return is, or how it differs from sibling tools like issue_refund.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever about when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when a return should be created, or when issue_refund might be more appropriate.

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