Refund from wallet

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'DESTRUCTIVE: reduces the client's credit balance', adding the specific consequence. It also notes the operation is 'Manually' performed, providing extra behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the action and example, the second warns about destructiveness. It is front-loaded and concise, with no redundant or vague wording.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 params, 3 required) and absence of an output schema, the description covers the core action and destructive consequence. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from refund_invoice/refund_payment or describe the response format, leaving minor 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 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level details; it only mentions 'client's wallet balance', which maps to client_id but doesn't explain parameters like amount or currency_code beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action with a specific verb and resource: 'refund an amount from a client's wallet balance', and gives an example use case ('paying out unused credit outside the system'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like refund_invoice and refund_payment.

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 a concrete context for when to use the tool ('paying out unused credit outside the system') and implies wallet-specific refunds, which differentiates it from invoice/payment refunds. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or say when not to use it.

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