submit_appeal

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

Annotations provide 'openWorldHint: true' and 'destructiveHint: false', but the description far surpasses them by detailing the hash-check mechanism, tamper check interpretation, return structure with appeal window and recomputation details, and the fact that a hash mismatch doesn't necessarily mean tampering. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections for the core purpose, behavioral detail, and Args/Returns. The description is front-loaded with a concise summary ('Dispute a VOP verdict...'). However, it is slightly verbose with the detailed tamper check explanation, which could be tightened without losing clarity. Still, every sentence 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 the complexity of the tool (5 parameters, 3 required, no schema coverage, outputs with nested dicts) and sibling tools that include verification functions, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters, return values explicitly (even without an output schema from the service, the description provides the structure), and accounts for time windows and error conditions. No gaps remain for an AI agent to safely invoke it.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It explains each parameter in the Args section: 'verification_id' as 'the report_id from the disputed verify_output/check_verdict call', 'request_content' and 'result_content' with hash-matching constraints, and optional params like 'appellant' and 'reason' with examples. The only minor gap is that 'appellant' examples don't clarify whether it's used for identification or routing, but overall it adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Dispute') and resource ('VOP verdict'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like 'verify_output' and 'check_verdict'. It adds the unique behavior of a 'deterministic tamper check' to further clarify its 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?

Explicitly states when to use (to dispute a verdict) and what not to do (reconstructed text will be rejected). Mentions time window constraints and provides clear prerequisites (exact original inputs). Alternatives like 'verify_output' are implied through context, making the guidance comprehensive.

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