agentpact.open_dispute

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

Annotations already indicate it is a write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) operation. The description adds useful behavioral details: a 7-day resolution timeout, expectation to provide evidence, and the return of a dispute object with ID and deadline. No contradiction.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds essential information (purpose, timeout, evidence, return). No redundant or missing parts.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return value (dispute object with ID and deadline). It covers key behavioral aspects. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., being a party to the deal is in param description only) but overall is complete for a dispute opening tool.

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 schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Open a formal dispute on a deal milestone'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cancel_deal' or 'confirm_delivery' by focusing on the dispute scenario.

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 provides a clear trigger condition: 'when buyer and seller cannot agree on delivery or payment'. It implies usage but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is a minor gap.

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