Update refund policy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that this maps to a native PUT /refund_policy, that it operates at account scope, and that per-call confirmation is required. It still omits what specifically gets overwritten when the policy is replaced.

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, front-loaded fragments with no filler; the confirmation requirement is stated early. The 'Reviewed native PUT /refund_policy' fragment is more provenance than actionable information, which slightly dilutes the otherwise tight structure.

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, non-idempotent write with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers confirmation and scope but never states which settings are mutable or what happens to unspecified fields. It is adequate alongside the annotations and rich schema, but leaves the mutation semantics thin.

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 100%, including enum values for refund_period, the fine_print length/HTML-stripping/clearing semantics, and the account label caveat, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when coverage is high.

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 'Update refund policy', which largely restates the tool name/title rather than adding a distinct verb+resource framing. The 'scope: account' note and the PUT provenance hint at the affected resource, but there is no differentiation from the sibling get_refund_policy or from other update_* tools. Purpose is inferable but not enriched.

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?

'Requires explicit per-call confirmation' gives one concrete precondition for invoking the tool, and the confirm parameter reinforces it. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_refund_policy or how it relates to the wider refund/policy siblings, so usage is only implied.

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