wafle_checkout_order_refund

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the exact effect (recorded on wafle_orders row), the gateway-side behavior (manual_refund:true metadata), and the current limitation (v2 integration). It also discloses the guardrail on >50% refunds, offering rich behavioral context for an agent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence contributes distinct information (behavior, guardrail, side effects, limitation). No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description is quite thorough for a destructive tool without an output schema, covering core behavior, side effects, and a key limitation. It does not explicitly describe the return value or error cases, but it's a single gap in an otherwise informative description.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It significantly clarifies amount_cents (omitted/0 = full refund, otherwise partial) and confirm (required for >50%). However, it leaves reason and order_id semantics unexplained, and slug already has a schema description, so the added value is partial.

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 'Refund a paid order' with a specific verb and resource, and it adds detail on full vs. partial refunds. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like wafle_orders_refund, which could confuse an agent about which refund tool to use.

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 clear conditional guidance: full vs. partial based on amount_cents, and the confirm:true requirement for large refunds. It doesn't address when to prefer this tool over wafle_orders_refund or other alternatives, so the tool-selection context is implied by the name rather than stated.

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