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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two real traits beyond the schema: a signed request is required (auth prerequisite) and a dispute requires a note (conditional validation). It does not say what confirmation or dispute does to the entry's state, whether either is reversible, or whether a dispute is terminal, which matters for a write operation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the two constraints. Every sentence carries information. The staccato phrasing ('A dispute needs a note. Needs a signed request.') is terse to the point of being slightly clipped, but no sentence is 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?

For a four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential selection and precondition rules but omits effects and outcomes: what a confirm or dispute changes, whether the caller learns anything back, and how idempotency interacts with retries. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'a dispute needs a note' clarifies the conditional requirement on note, and 'a comb entry you did not write' frames what id refers to. The stance enum is implied by the verb pair. Nothing is added for id's format or the idempotency_key beyond what the schema already documents.

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 action pair (confirm or dispute) against a specific resource (the current version of a comb entry). The qualifier 'you did not write' crisply scopes it away from comb_write and any self-review path. It stops just short of naming the closest sibling, but the verb+resource+scope is unambiguous.

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?

Implied usage is clear: act on an entry authored by someone else, and attach a note when disputing. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no statement of the alternative (e.g., comb_write for revising your own entry), and no indication of prerequisites such as whether the entry must be in a particular state.

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