Build Data Dispute Record

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it explains WHY the operation is read-only (builds but does not submit, store, or send) and where the dispute is actually resolved. This reconciles the otherwise surprising 'Create' verb with the read-only annotation rather than contradicting it.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the defining non-side-effecting constraint front-loaded. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally indicate what is returned (a signed record object), and it only implies this. Combined with no parameter guidance, the definition is adequate for a build-only tool but leaves clear gaps.

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% (just the 'evidence' array is annotated as 'Evidence artifact IDs'). The description adds no parameter information at all: it never mentions artifactId, filedBy, or the disputeType enum with its five values. With low coverage, the description should compensate and does not.

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 gives a specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('signed dispute record against a data artifact'), and a precise scope constraint. An agent can tell this apart from sibling mutation tools like create_data_enforcement_gate or create_artifact_provenance, 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?

It states an important boundary ('without submitting, storing, or sending it') and that 'resolution happens outside the protocol', which implies the intended context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use trigger, prerequisites, or named alternative for actually filing the dispute, so usage is only implied.

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