refund

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It only says 'Refund a captured payment,' which indicates mutation but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether refund is partial/full, if payment becomes refunded, or if it triggers notifications). The behavioral impact is underspecified.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks helpful structure. It is front-loaded, but the sentence is brief. It earns its place but could be slightly expanded for clarity without becoming verbose.

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 sibling tools like capture and void, the description does not explain how refund differs or what returns from the tool (no output schema). For a mutation action, this is incomplete; missing error conditions or required payment state.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema property descriptions (e.g., 'Payment ID to refund'). It does not clarify formats, constraints, or relationships between parameters.

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 'Refund a captured payment' clearly states the verb (refund) and the specific resource (captured payment). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like capture, void, or create_payment, which handle different stages.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use refund versus alternatives like void. For example, it does not mention that the payment must be in a 'captured' state or that refunds may not be possible after a certain time. The description implies usage but lacks explicit context.

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