delete_refund

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a delete (destructive) and requires userId, but it does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades, whether authorization is required, or what happens if the refund is already deleted. The HTTP endpoint is useful but does not cover behavioral consequences.

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 a single sentence with the endpoint and the key requirement. It is concise and front-loaded with the action. It could be slightly more structured, but it earns its place with no wasted words.

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 destructive delete tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain the response, error cases, or whether the operation is reversible. The sibling list includes many delete tools, and this description does not help an agent distinguish when to pick delete_refund over delete_reimbursement or delete_bill. The required userId hint is useful but incomplete.

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% for the single 'entity' parameter, and the schema already describes it as the refund object containing primary key refundId. The description adds that userId must also be carried in entity, which is not explicitly in the schema's propertyNames or description. This adds some value beyond the schema, but the schema already covers the main structure.

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 ('删除退款' = delete refund) and resource (refund), and includes the HTTP endpoint POST /refund/deleteRefund. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_reimbursement by naming the refund resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 usage by stating the required fields (refundId and userId) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_reimbursement or save_refund. It provides the necessary precondition (entity must carry primary key and userId) but no context on when deletion is appropriate.

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