Create refund

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

The description adds critical context beyond annotations: it warns that the operation moves real money and is irreversible. This enriches the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations, making the financial impact unmistakable. No contradiction with 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 concise, with two sentences that are front-loaded with the action and followed by a crucial warning. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 covers the essential behavioral constraints (real money, irreversible, full/partial) and relies on the output schema for return values. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning prerequisites like payment status, but for a refund tool with this schema and annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The description mentions payment_id and amount by name but does not add significantly to what the schema already states. It does not elaborate on the optional description parameter or amount format.

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 a specific action: refund a payment, by payment_id and amount. It also specifies scope (full or partial) and distinguishes from sibling tools like capture_payment or cancel_payment, which are different operations.

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 implies usage for refunds but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like cancel_payment or capture_payment. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, only an implied purpose.

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