ep_dispute_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully shoulders the burden. It discloses the mutating nature of filing a dispute, the allowed reasons, and the timeline. Could improve by noting side effects, but overall adequate.

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?

Three concise sentences: action, reasons list, and response timeline. No fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Lacks details on the evidence parameter structure, and no output schema means agents don't know what the response contains. Missing process context (e.g., success indicators, status updates). Adequate but incomplete.

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 covers all params with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds the list of reasons, which is helpful, but does not elaborate on the evidence object structure or add significant new context.

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 ('File a dispute against a receipt') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ep_dispute_status and ep_appeal_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?

States who can use it ('Any affected party'), lists reasons, and mentions the 7-day response window. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or specify prerequisites.

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