⚠️ CPA: complaint by actionId

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

The description discloses the irreversible nature of the complaint ('cannot be withdrawn'), adding crucial behavioral context beyond the `destructiveHint: true` annotation. It also specifies the rate limit, which is not captured in annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise with three sentences, each conveying essential information: purpose, irreversibility, prerequisite, preference, and rate limit. No redundant or extraneous content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers all key operational aspects: purpose, irreversibility, prerequisites, sibling differentiation, and rate limits. Annotations further support safety profiling. No gaps remain.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description only adds minimal context by mentioning the prerequisite actionId source, but does not further elaborate on parameter semantics beyond 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?

The description precisely states the tool's function: filing a complaint about a CPA target action by actionId to dispute a charge. It clearly identifies the resource (CPA target action) and the verb (files a complaint), and distinguishes from sibling `cpa_post_create_complaint` by noting it covers both calls and chats.

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 explicit usage context: it requires the actionId from specific preceding tools, recommends this tool over an alternative, and includes a rate limit of 3 requests per minute. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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