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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context: auth prerequisites (claimed Last Price credential), workspace-claim enforcement with the specific 403 on sandbox keys, and the null-clears-reason nuance. This is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with verb+resource and the parameter contract, then workflow, then prerequisites. Every sentence carries information, though the workspace-claim prerequisite runs slightly long relative to the core call guidance.

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 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers parameters, valid transitions, and auth/environment prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly or understand why a 403 occurred.

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 100%, so the field meanings are already documented. The description earns credit by stating the at-least-one-of constraint across status/reason/metadata, which is not expressible in the schema (only dispute_id is required), adding a genuine usage rule beyond structured data.

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 ("Change a payment dispute") and immediately scopes which fields can change. It is clearly distinguishable from create_dispute, get_dispute, and list_disputes in the sibling set.

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 concrete workflow guidance mapping statuses to situations: under_review while investigating, resolved/rejected once decided. It doesn't explicitly route away from sibling tools (e.g., use get_dispute to read), but the usage context is clear.

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