Disputes file

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

The annotations are all 'false', giving little behavioral signal, so the description carries the full burden. It goes well beyond the schema by revealing that filing on a service quote pauses its payout auto-release, and that a deterministic auto-classifier routes clear-cut cases while the rest get admin review with a 72h SLA. This is exactly the meaningful behavior an agent needs to know.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and target types, the second clarifies the target exclusivity, and the remaining sentences cover the piece side-effect and the resolution flow. No filler or redundant explanation for what the schema already states.

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 six parameters, a sizeable enum, and an output schema absent, the description covers every key fact needed to invoke it correctly: target types, reason mapping, exclusivity, optionality, and critical side-effects. Combined with the schema's own field descriptions, the agent has enough to safely file a dispute.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping reason enums into goods-only/service-only/generic categories, reinforcing the one-of-order_id-or-service_quote_id constraint, and connecting service_quote_id to a behavioral side-effect. It does not duplicate any deeper schema meaning but clarifies the cross-parameter relationships.

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 opens with the specific verb 'File a dispute' and names both target resources: a goods order (order_id) or a service quote (service_quote_id). It distinguishes itself from dispute sibling tools by focusing on creation, and it clearly outlines the reason enums and the 'exactly one' constraint.

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 clearly tells the agent when to use this tool – to initiate a dispute on either target type with the appropriate reason set. However, it does not explicitly name alternative dispute tools (e.g., disputes_respond, disputes_withdraw) or say 'not for adding evidence or withdrawing', so the agent has to infer that from sibling names.

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