stripe_dispatch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the internal pipeline (policy, simulator, Merkle audit, execute/queue) but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or whether operations are logged or require approval. Partial transparency.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, one for pipeline, then a clear parameter list. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 generic dispatcher with 4 parameters and an output schema (not described), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core inputs and the routing process. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling, rate limits, or how to interpret the output (though output schema exists).

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides examples for each parameter: resource as 'customers', verb as 'create', op_inputs as JSON string, stripe_account_id as optional connected-account id. This adds meaningful usage context beyond parameter names.

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 'Run any Stripe-orchestrator (resource, verb) op', specifying the tool's purpose as a generic dispatcher for Stripe operations. It identifies the key parameters (resource, verb) and distinguishes itself from more specific stripe_* tools by being a universal gateway.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like stripe_create_invoice or stripe_list_invoices. While it implies it's for arbitrary operations, it lacks guidance on prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where using a specific tool might be better.

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