firestarter_disputes

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It clearly enumerates all actions (open, message, accept, reject, counter, withdraw, escalate) and explains side effects like image upload and attachment. It stops short of stating permanence or consequences of actions like withdraw/escalate, but is largely 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?

Though long, the description is tightly structured: purpose statement, usage triggers, call patterns, action breakdown, sibling distinction. Every sentence conveys necessary information for a tool with 10 parameters and 7 actions — no filler.

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 fully covers all invocation modes (no arguments, execution_id, dispute_id), every action and its required/optional parameters, and even names the sibling tool. With no output schema, the description provides all context needed to select and use the tool correctly.

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 is 100%, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning far beyond the schema: it explains how 'OMIT to list', when execution_id stands in for dispute_id, and that seller_pct + buyer_pct must sum to 100. This action-to-parameter mapping is not present in the schema alone.

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 opens with 'For BUYERS: open, check, and resolve disputes on orders the user BOUGHT' – a specific verb, resource, and audience. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool firestarter_seller_disputes, making the purpose immediately 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?

The description gives explicit triggers ('Use this whenever a buyer asks...') and directly names the alternative tool for seller-side disputes. It also provides concrete invocation patterns: 'Call with NO arguments to list', 'pass execution_id to check', 'pass dispute_id to see the full thread'.

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