dispute_episodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that neither statement is closed, that both persist in query results tagged with disputed_with, and that the dispute clears automatically when either side is invalidated or superseded. It does not cover idempotency (calling it twice on the same pair) or whether the two episodes must live in the same vault, which leaves a couple of behavioral gaps.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the eligibility condition, followed by lifetime semantics and then the sibling routing. No sentence is filler and the ordering matches the agent's decision sequence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the lifecycle of a dispute is well covered. However, for a four-parameter mutation with zero schema documentation, the missing parameter detail (particularly vault_name and note) and the unstated same-vault/duplicate-call constraints leave the definition short of complete.

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 0%, so every parameter depends on the description, and none of the four are explained. The symmetric framing hints at episode_id and other_id, but the roles are never stated, and vault_name and note are entirely unaddressed (note's purpose and default of empty string are especially opaque).

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 opening sentence names a specific action (record a mutual incompatibility between two open statements) and the precondition that defines it (you cannot tell which one is wrong). It is immediately distinguishable from supersede_episode and invalidate_episode, which are named later as the tools for the case where the wrong side is known.

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 states both directions explicitly: use this when you cannot identify the faulty statement, and use supersede_episode or invalidate_episode instead when you can. It also names the condition under which the dispute is unnecessary because it resolves itself (invalidation or supersession).

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