wp_refund_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the confirm requirement and the configuration prerequisite, indicating this is a guarded mutation. However, it does not describe the financial side effects, order status impact, or restocking behavior, and its blanket 'confirm:true required' claim is at odds with the schema's conditional 'Required when safe mode is enabled'.

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 three short, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the core action, then states the key requirements without filler or redundant information.

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?

For a financial mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is minimally viable: it names the action and the two essential prerequisites. It still lacks context about safe-mode behavior, refund consequences, and what happens after invocation, which leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; 'confirm:true required' restates a parameter-level requirement that the schema already documents conditionally. The config setting is helpful context but is not a parameter.

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 WooCommerce order refund.' This clearly identifies the action and target, and the tool name reinforces it. It does not explicitly contrast with similar order-related siblings like wp_update_order, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 provides important preconditions: 'confirm:true required' and the required wp_mcp_allow_wc_refunds setting. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as wp_update_order or wp_add_order_note; usage context is only implied by the refund-focused purpose.

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