dispute_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a mutation. It says nothing about permissions required, whether the dispute is reversible, whether the original record content is preserved, or how the disputed state differs from deletion.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the qualifying condition appended. No filler, nothing redundant.

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, but for a state-mutating tool with no annotations the description should cover reversibility and required identifiers. It covers the conceptual trigger well while leaving operational details thin.

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% for two required parameters, and the description never mentions record_id or project_path. It adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter names, leaving the agent to guess formats and scoping.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("mark a record disputed") plus the triggering condition ("evidence conflicts but no replacement is established"). This implicitly separates it from supersede_memory, which presumably applies when a replacement exists, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition tied to the state of the evidence. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative (supersede_memory) or stating when not to use it, so the routing is inferable but not spelled out.

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