file_data_dispute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a key trait: the tool only records disputes and does not resolve them (resolution is external). However, it omits other behavioral details such as permissions, side effects, idempotency, or return behavior, so it is only minimally transparent.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant wording. Each sentence adds meaningful information: the action and the key limitation (external resolution). It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not provide enough context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool – e.g., who should be filedBy, what dispute types are valid, what evidence is needed, or what the outcome of filing is. The description is a minimal placeholder rather than a complete guide.

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 only 25% (only 'evidence' has a description), so the description must compensate. It adds the meaning that the dispute is 'against a data artifact,' which clarifies artifactId, but it fails to explain filedBy, disputeType categories, or how to structure evidence. This is insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage.

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's function: 'File a dispute against a data artifact' – a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes the tool from resolution-focused siblings by noting 'The protocol records disputes — resolution is external.' This gives a crisp, non-tautological purpose.

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 phrase 'resolution is external' implies this tool is for filing only, not resolving disputes, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The usage context is clear enough for basic selection but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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