Generate a dispute defense packet with independently verified evidence for a vacation rental payment dispute. Alias for get_chargeback_defense_for_booking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | No | Disputed amount in cents | |
| booking_id | Yes | Booking UUID | |
| dispute_id | No | Dispute ID (if available) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the packet uses 'independently verified evidence,' a meaningful behavioral trait. No contradictions with annotations.
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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the alias note is compact and valuable. No redundant or extraneous 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?
No output schema exists, but the description conveys the tool's purpose and key feature (verified evidence). The alias also helps locate the sibling tool. Slightly more detail about packet contents could help, but it remains sufficient for a straightforward generation 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?
Schema descriptions cover all three parameters (amount, booking_id, dispute_id) at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond the schema, but it also introduces no confusion.
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?
The description clearly states the tool generates a dispute defense packet with independently verified evidence, using a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly names itself as an alias for get_chargeback_defense_for_booking, distinguishing it from sibling dispute tools.
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?
The alias mention provides clear context that this tool is equivalent to get_chargeback_defense_for_booking, guiding users to the canonical sibling. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other dispute-related tools like get_dispute_evidence_bundle_for_booking, so exclusions are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
