Receive return

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds a key side effect beyond them: received items are restocked. It does not, however, disclose the notify_customer behavior or permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and consequence, then two tightly-scoped conditional clauses. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary effect and the two most important defaulting rules. Only the notify_customer side effect and the role of 'order' vs 'return_id' resolution are left unaddressed.

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?

With 60% schema coverage, the description usefully explains the defaulting behavior of 'items' and 'return_id'. It leaves the semantics of 'note', 'order', and 'notify_customer' (default true) to the schema/reader inference.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Records that returned items arrived') and adds the concrete consequence ('they go back to stock'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling create_return, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides conditional rules for two parameters (defaults when 'items' or 'return_id' are omitted), which is helpful operational guidance, but says nothing about when to prefer this over create_return or other return-related siblings.

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