paymentSessions.refund

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It fails to mention idempotency, synchronous vs. asynchronous processing, reversibility, or financial side effects beyond the implied refund action.

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 single sentence wastes no words, but is insufficiently sized for the tool's complexity (financial operation with multiple optional parameters). It is front-loaded but under-delivers critical information.

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?

Severely inadequate for a high-stakes financial mutation with zero schema coverage and no output schema. Missing: partial refund logic, platform fee implications, idempotency guarantees, and error scenarios.

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 0% schema description coverage and 4 undocumented parameters, the description must compensate but adds nothing. It doesn't clarify that `amount` enables partial refunds, what `refundPlatformFee` controls, or expected formats.

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 the core action (Refund) and resource (Ryft payment session), but fails to distinguish from similar sibling operations like `paymentSessions.void` or clarify refund scope (partial vs. full).

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 no guidance on when to use this versus `void` or `capture`, nor does it indicate that the `amount` parameter enables partial refunds or that `id` refers to the original payment session ID.

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