request_redoAsk the seller for a free redo they guaranteed in their offer (no dispute needed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Task id. | |
| reason | Yes | What to change in the redo. | |
| buyer_token | No | buyer_token from create_task. Not needed if you are the buyer member who posted the task. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / reason / descriptionAdded value: +"What to change in the redo."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=false annotation already signals a write/mutating action, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context that the redo is free and pre-guaranteed so no dispute is required, but says nothing about what happens on success, whether it is reversible, or any auth/permission nuance.
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?
A single tight sentence with the key enabling condition ('free redo they guaranteed in their offer') front-loaded and the routing hint ('no dispute needed') trailing. Nothing wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents the parameters. For a simple single-step request action the description is adequate, though slightly more on outcome/behavior after the request would fully close it out.
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%, so all three parameters (id, reason, buyer_token) are already documented in the schema, including the buyer_token auth note. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (ask/request) and resource (a free redo the seller guaranteed in their offer). It draws a meaningful boundary against the dispute path by saying 'no dispute needed', which lets an agent separate this from dispute_task, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
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?
Gives a clear precondition (the seller guaranteed a free redo in their offer) and a contrast condition (no dispute needed), so the agent knows this is the lighter-weight path versus disputing. It stops short of an explicit when-not or naming the alternative tool.
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.