Disputes withdraw

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

The description conveys that withdrawal is a state-changing action (open → withdrawn) and implies limited applicability (only open disputes). It aligns with the destructiveHint annotation, though it does not detail all side effects (e.g., whether withdrawal can be reversed), which is acceptable for this level.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey all essential information. No redundant words or unnecessary structure.

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 single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: who can use it (buyer), what it does (withdraw), and when it is valid (open disputes only). No additional information is needed for correct invocation.

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 input schema already provides a clear description for the single parameter (dispute_id as UUID of the open dispute), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-specific details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('withdraw') and the resource ('an open dispute'), distinguishing it from sibling dispute operations like file, list, get, add evidence, and respond. The scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 specifies the actor ('Buyer-only') and the condition ('open dispute'), explicitly noting that closed disputes cannot be withdrawn. While it does not enumerate when to use alternative dispute actions, the given constraints sufficiently guide selection.

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