open_dispute

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

In the absence of annotations, the description reveals key behavioral traits: it starts an automatic keyword-based evaluation and modifies the escrow status to 'disputed'. However, it does not disclose reversibility, side effects, or post-evaluation steps.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. The args list is structured but could be more streamlined. No unnecessary repetition.

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?

The description lacks information about return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., escrow must be in a specific state). Given no output schema, this is a notable gap for agent decision-making.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively explains each parameter's purpose: escrow_id as the disputed escrow ID, reason as justification with an example, and evidence as optional details. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states it opens a dispute for an escrow, starts an automatic evaluation, and sets the status to 'disputed'. The verb 'open' and resource 'dispute for escrow' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like auto_resolve_expired or release_escrow.

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 description implies when to use (to dispute an escrow) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. It lacks guidance for agents to choose between this and other dispute-related tools like process_claim.

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