wafle_orders_refund

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces and extends this by stating 'Destructive AND irreversible' and advising to 'Confirm amount before calling.' It also discloses the refund routes through the capturing gateway (MercadoPago/Stripe/manual transfer), adding beyond the structured data.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the safety warning follows naturally.

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 refund operation, it conveys the essential action, scope, gateway, and irreversibility warning. It lacks an explicit pointer to wafle_checkout_order_refund, but overall it is complete enough to guide an agent, especially since no output schema exists.

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?

The schema itself documents slug and amount, including 'Omit for full refund; set for partial.' The description echoes the full/partial behavior but adds no new meaning for order_id or reason, which lack schema descriptions. Thus it contributes marginal value over 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 opens with 'Refund a paid order, fully or partially,' giving a specific verb and resource plus clarifying the full/partial scope, and distinguishes from order-cancellation tools. It doesn't explicitly mention the checkout_order_refund sibling but the intent is clear from the name and first sentence.

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 establishes when to use it: when a paid order needs a refund, and notes gateway routing. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions, so it provides clear context but stops short of explicit differentiation.

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