Refund payment

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

Annotations declare destructive, idempotent and openWorld, so the safety bar is partly met by structured data; the description nonetheless adds the key semantics: refund_ref as idempotency key with replay-returns-same-refund behavior and the OUTCOME_UNKNOWN non-retry rule. It does not say what a partial refund does to subsequent refundable balance or whether instant speed carries extra cost.

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?

Four sentences, each with a distinct job: what it does, idempotency, failure recovery, money-movement safety. The safety-critical instruction is last-sentence prominent and nothing is padded.

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, open-world money-movement tool with 9 params and no output schema, it covers purpose, idempotency, uncertain-outcome recovery and approval gating. An agent has enough to invoke correctly and to avoid a duplicate refund.

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 coverage is 67% and the description supplies the two most consequential semantics not fully in the schema: refund_ref is an idempotency key for safe resends and confirm=true is gated on human approval in live mode. It leaves speed, reason, include_raw and provider_payment_id unexplained, so it doesn't fully compensate for the remaining coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Refund all or part of a captured payment.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling retrieval tools by naming payments_get_refund_status and payments_get_status as recovery paths rather than refund paths.

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?

Explicit routing: on OUTCOME_UNKNOWN, check the two status tools BEFORE retrying, and in live mode ask the human first, then pass confirm=true. This gives when-to-use, when-not-to-retry, and the prerequisite gate in three compact sentences.

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