Disputes Update

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's main added value is the operational requirement "Required scope: write_payments" and the pinned API version 2025-03, both of which are real context an agent needs before calling. It does not say what happens to dispute fields not included in the payload, nor whether status transitions are constrained.

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, then the endpoint, scope, and version in scannable lines — nothing redundant. The dangling "(status, evidence...)" is the one flaw: it truncates rather than earning its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the definition covers endpoint, scope, and version but leaves the agent without the two things that matter most for a PUT on a dispute: which fields are accepted and what the response/updated state looks like. Annotations carry the safety profile, so this is adequate rather than complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's mention of "status, evidence" adds a hint about the shape of the opaque `dispute` body, but it trails off with "..." and never enumerates the accepted dispute fields, leaving the anyOf object/array payload underspecified beyond the schema's "Dispute fields to update".

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 ("Update a dispute") and lists the primary fields touched (status, evidence), which distinguishes it from siblings tiendanube_disputes_create and tiendanube_disputes_get. The trailing ellipsis keeps the field list incomplete, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this modifies an existing dispute rather than creating or reading one, but the description never states prerequisites (e.g. a dispute must already exist in a state that permits updates) or when to prefer this over other payment/transaction tools.

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