disputes.addEvidence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to clarify key mutation traits: whether evidence is cumulative or replaces existing evidence, validity constraints (e.g., allowed file types, text limits), or whether this action triggers a status change in the dispute.

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 a single, appropriately front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrases. However, its extreme breverity (6 words) crosses into under-specification territory given the tool's parameter complexity and lack of schema documentation.

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 workflow-sensitive mutation tool with nested object parameters, zero schema coverage, and dependencies on sibling tools (files.create), the description is incomplete. It omits critical context about file upload prerequisites, dispute lifecycle constraints, and return values.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate for three undocumented parameters including nested objects (text, files). While 'Add evidence' loosely maps to the purpose of text and files parameters, it fails to clarify that 'id' refers to the dispute ID, that files contains IDs (not raw data), or the meaning of 'uncategorized' prefixes.

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 core action ('Add') and resource ('evidence') within the 'Ryft dispute' domain. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like disputes.deleteEvidence, disputes.get, and disputes.list. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Ryft' refers to and the nature of the evidence being added.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus disputes.challenge or disputes.accept, nor does it mention prerequisites like uploading files via files.create before referencing their IDs in the uncategorizedFileIds parameter. No workflow context is provided.

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