payway_refund

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key requirement (PAYWAY_RSA_PUBLIC_KEY) and a business rule (30-day window, completed transactions), which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, failure behavior, or reversibility, which are important for a mutation tool. It adds some context but not comprehensive.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the purpose and includes a key requirement without any unnecessary words. Every part contributes meaning.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a critical prerequisite, but it omits return value expectations, error scenarios, and whether the refund is immediate. While simple, it leaves some gaps that an agent might need to know.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention tran_id or refund_amount at all. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description only hints at 'full or partial refund' without clarifying the amount's semantics, units, or relationship to the original transaction. It fails to add value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Issue a full or partial refund within 30 days of a COMPLETED transaction.' It specifies the resource (transaction) and action (refund), and the time/completion constraints make it distinct from sibling tools like payway_purchase or payway_check_transaction.

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?

It provides explicit conditions for use: only within 30 days and only for COMPLETED transactions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the name and description make it obvious it is the refund tool. This is clear enough but lacks explicit exclusions.

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