ebay_contest_payment_dispute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only mentions the OAuth scope requirement and the basic action. It does not disclose side effects, whether it is reversible, or what happens after contesting (e.g., starts a review).

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 with three sentences: purpose, usage scenario, and OAuth scope. It is front-loaded with the core function. Could be slightly more 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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema) and sibling tools, the description covers the main purpose and when to use it. However, it omits explanation of the 'revisionNumber' parameter and the outcome of contesting a dispute, which would help 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; parameters like 'revisionNumber' and 'returnAddress' are not explained further.

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 verb 'contest' and resource 'payment dispute' with the action of providing evidence. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ebay_accept_payment_dispute', but could better differentiate from 'ebay_add_payment_dispute_evidence'.

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 specifies when to use the tool ('when you disagree with the buyer claim and want to provide proof') and lists required OAuth scope, but does not mention when not to use it or alternatives like accepting the dispute.

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