disputes.deleteEvidence

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Fails to disclose whether deletion is reversible, if it affects dispute status, or timing restrictions (e.g., only deletable before challenge submitted).

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?

Single sentence of 6 words is appropriately front-loaded, but given the complexity (destructive operation, 3 undocumented parameters), this brevity constitutes underspecification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

Destructive operation with 3 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema requires substantial documentation. The 6-word description is inadequate for safe and 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage. Description fails to explain what the 'id', 'text', and 'files' parameters represent (e.g., are 'text' and 'files' evidence IDs or content? Is 'id' the dispute ID?). No compensation for undocumented 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?

States specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'evidence from a Ryft dispute'. Distinguishes from sibling 'disputes.addEvidence' through inverse action, though does not explicitly name the sibling.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus disputes.addEvidence, disputes.accept, or disputes.challenge. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., dispute state requirements) or workflow constraints.

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