Refund payment

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces this with 'Irreversible' and adds genuine context beyond the annotations: the automatic payment-selection behavior when payment_id is absent. It does not disclose what the call returns or whether partial refunds against a payment are constrained.

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, each earning its place: the destructive/confirmation warning is front-loaded, followed by the default-resolution rule and the value-source pointer. Zero 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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, a user-confirmation requirement, parameter defaulting, and reason-code lookup. Only the response shape and any refund-eligibility constraints are left implicit.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two undocumented functional params: payment_id's defaulting behavior and where refund_reason_id values come from (get_store_info). The 'note' param remains unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (refunds), the resource (money/customer payment) and the mechanism (through the payment provider). It is unambiguously distinct from siblings like capture_payment, cancel_order, or create_return, with no overlap.

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?

Gives concrete pre-call guidance ('confirm the amount with the user') and an explicit fallback rule for when payment_id is omitted. It also routes the agent to get_store_info for valid refund reasons. It stops short of naming alternative tools for adjacent scenarios (e.g., when a refund is not possible and a return/cancel is appropriate).

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