dispute_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds that 'the worker will be notified and may contest,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose other side effects (e.g., task status changes, impact on funds, reversal possibilities) or required permissions. The description adds moderate value beyond the schema.

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 concise: two sentences, no superfluous words, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main action and a key behavioral effect. However, it could provide more context on the dispute process (e.g., is the task paused? Is there a time limit for contest?). Some gaps remain, but it is moderately complete given the tool's simplicity.

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% (both parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The tool description does not add meaningful parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. 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 tool's purpose: 'Dispute a submitted task's proof-of-work.' This uses a specific verb (dispute) and resource (submitted task's proof-of-work), and mentions the consequence (worker notified and may contest). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like approve_task and cancel_task.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies dispute is for insufficient proof-of-work, but does not contrast with approve_task, cancel_task, or other actions. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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