Disputes Create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful operational context the annotations don't carry: the required write_payments scope, the concrete HTTP path, and the pinned API version 2025-03. It doesn't cover error/duplicate behavior or what a successful call yields.

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?

Front-loaded with the action in the first line, then compact metadata lines. Every line carries information; the HTTP line is the weakest but still conveys path-parameter placement.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description should say what comes back (dispute ID/status) or what happens on duplicate disputes. It covers endpoint, scope and version well but omits the response shape and failure behavior, leaving a meaningful gap for agent planning.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented and the baseline is 3. The endpoint line restates order_id and transaction_id as path segments, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and the opaque `dispute` payload is only deferred to "the Disputes API reference."

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 a specific verb and resource ("Open a dispute/chargeback on a transaction") plus the exact endpoint, which pins down the resource hierarchy (order → transaction → dispute). It is clear, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tiendanube_disputes_update or disputes_get.

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 verb "open" implies first-time creation versus the sibling disputes_update, but that routing is left to inference. No statement of when a dispute should be opened versus an existing one updated, and no prerequisites beyond the scope line.

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