File SAP Escrow V2 Dispute

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

Description adds general MCP context about write tools requiring signer policy and RPC, but lacks specific details on dispute effects (e.g., blocking settlement, cost). Annotations already indicate it's a write operation, so additional context is marginal.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and structured.

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?

Despite output schema existing, the description lacks guidance on when to file a dispute, what happens after, or any dependencies. Only generic MCP context is provided, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond parameter descriptions. With 0 required parameters, the description could clarify importance of settlementIndex, but does not.

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 files a dispute for a V2 pending settlement, using a specific verb and resource. This differentiates it from siblings like sap_create_escrow_v2 and sap_settle_escrow_v2.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor prerequisites or conditions. The description does not clarify if parameters are effectively required or how to know when a dispute is appropriate.

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