ecash_vote_dispute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains the vote semantics but does not disclose whether the vote is final, reversible, or what side effects occur (e.g., payout processing). This is a notable gap, but the core behavior is not hidden.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the vote mapping. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the action, actor, and vote values, but omits details about what happens after voting or prerequisites beyond being assigned. Given low complexity, this is quite adequate.

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 complete descriptions for both parameters (vote and jobId), including the meaning of vote values. The description reinforces these values but adds no new information beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, 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 ('Vote on a dispute'), identifies the actor ('assigned arbitrator'), and specifies the exact vote values (1 for Hirer Wins, 2 for Worker Wins). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecash_file_dispute and ecash_get_dispute.

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 phrase 'as an assigned arbitrator' provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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