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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description is not required to restate destructiveness. It adds useful behavioral context: only open disputes are eligible and closed ones are not. It does not detail side effects such as what happens to the dispute state after withdrawal, but the annotation coverage plus the status restriction make this adequate.

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 short sentences with no filler. The key facts—buyer-only and open disputes only—are front-loaded, and the closed-dispute exclusion is stated directly.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential eligibility rules. It could mention what a successful withdrawal returns or whether withdrawal is final, but the core calling conditions are sufficiently complete for a simple tool.

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?

The input schema is fully self-documenting with 100% coverage, including a descriptive comment for dispute_id. The description's mention of 'open dispute' reinforces the parameter's meaning but adds no new format or semantic details beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: withdraw a dispute, and narrows scope to buyer-only and open disputes. Clearly distinguishes from related sibling tools like disputes_respond, disputes_file, and disputes_add_evidence. The open-versus-closed constraint adds precision.

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 says buyer-only and that closed disputes cannot be withdrawn, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternative sibling tools for other dispute actions, so it falls just short of the strongest possible guidance.

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