firestarter_seller_disputes

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: refund 'lift[s] the escrow freeze', contest 'reject[s] the claim', and split proposes a partial refund. It also clarifies the non-destructive read paths (list and read thread). It stops short of fully describing outcome/irreversibility, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and sibling distinction before diving into call patterns. Every sentence carries operational value, though a bulleted structure for the four actions would improve scanability.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains the return behavior for list (each dispute shows its dispute_id) and for read (full thread with buyer claim and photos). It covers all call modes, all actions, parameter constraints, and the key alternative tool. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant extra semantics: no-args lists disputes, dispute_id alone reads the thread, image_urls should carry a packing shot, and split requires buyer_pct + seller_pct = 100. It also warns against converting images to base64, which is practical guidance not present in the 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'View and resolve disputes on orders the user is SELLING', and immediately scopes it as 'the SELLER side only'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling firestarter_disputes by contrasting seller-side versus buyer-side disputes, so an agent can tell them apart without parsing schemas.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool ('when a seller mentions a dispute, complaint, refund, chargeback, or return on something they sell') and when not to ('if the user is asking about something they BOUGHT... use firestarter_disputes instead'). It also gives clear call patterns: no args to list, dispute_id alone to read, and action plus parameters to act.

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