Accept or reject a dispute proposal

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by spelling out the consequence of each branch: accept irreversibly executes the split and completes the transaction, while reject leaves the dispute open. It also discloses the GLONGUS_API_KEY auth requirement, which annotations do not cover.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler: purpose first, consequences second, prerequisite last. Every sentence adds information an agent needs before calling.

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 three-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, branch consequences, id provenance and auth. The only gap is what the caller gets back after accepting or rejecting, which is a minor omission.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does so by naming the source of both ids (get_transaction's dispute_proposals) and characterizing the two enum values by their effects. It does not restate the txn_ pattern or required-ness, but the schema handles that.

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 (decide) and resource (the other party's settlement proposal), and immediately clarifies the two possible actions. It is clearly distinct from propose_dispute_split (make an offer) and respond_to_dispute, and it points to where the ids come from.

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?

Explains the outcome of each action — accept executes the split immediately and completes the transaction, reject leaves the dispute open — which effectively tells an agent when each branch is appropriate. It also routes to get_transaction's dispute_proposals for id lookup, though it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools.

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