tool_dispute_resolve

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses stake slashing behavior and the condition (claimant win). Slight ambiguity in 'optional' vs 'automatic' but overall transparent.

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?

Description is concise (6 lines), front-loaded with main purpose, and uses an Args block for clarity. No unnecessary 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?

Covers the main side effect (stake slashing) but lacks prerequisites like dispute must be open or stakeholder conditions. No output schema, so return values not specified. Slightly incomplete but adequate for a simple 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 coverage 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains dispute_id and winner_id clearly, but resolution_notes is minimal. No format or constraints given beyond basic explanations.

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 resolves an open dispute and optionally slashes loser's stake. It specifies the automatic slashing when claimant wins, and distinguishes from sibling tools like tool_dispute_open or tool_slash_stake.

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?

Implies usage after a dispute is opened (via sibling tool_dispute_open) but doesn't explicitly state when to use or not use. No alternatives mentioned, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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