Disputes respond

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the authorization requirement (respond_dispute action), which is valuable context beyond annotations. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or the impact on dispute status, leaving behavioral transparency incomplete.

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?

A single, focused sentence that states purpose, auth requirement, and input constraint without fluff. Front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple mutation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and auth. However, it lacks usage context (when to use vs siblings) and side-effect information, which is necessary for a complete picture. The tool is low complexity, so this is a modest gap.

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%; both 'text' and 'dispute_id' already have descriptions. The description repeats the length constraint ('Free-form text 1–4000 chars') that the schema's minLength/maxLength already specifies, adding little new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully describes parameters.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Seller-side response to a dispute', using a specific verb ('respond') and resource ('dispute'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like disputes_file, disputes_get, and disputes_add_evidence by explicitly framing it as the response action. The auth requirement adds precision.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other dispute-related tools (e.g., disputes_add_evidence, disputes_withdraw). It does not state conditions for use or alternatives. The only hint is 'Seller-side', but it does not clarify the decision boundary with siblings.

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