refundPayment

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that refund_destination and writeoff_invoices control where money goes and invoice write-off, and mentions host enforcement of confirmation. Lacks details on auth requirements or error behavior but sufficient for core behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Each sentence serves a clear role: purpose, refund logic, additional controls and confirmation note.

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?

Covers core refund logic well but lacks description of return values or output. Since no output schema, description should hint at what the tool returns (e.g., refund confirmation). Missing error conditions or prerequisites like payment capture status.

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%. Description adds value beyond schema: explains refund_amount=0 for full refund, clarifies refund_destination valid values, and writeoff_invoices effect. Provides useful context not in schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Refund a payment (full or partial).' It is specific about the resource (payment) and action (refund), and distinguishes from siblings like payInvoice or createPayment.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use full vs partial refund via refund_amount=0 or positive integer. Also instructs not to ask for user re-confirmation because host enforces approval. Does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools but provides clear context.

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