dispute_delivery

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains key consequences: locking dispute_fee, on-chain voting, finality of resolution, and allocation of dispute fee to arbitrators. It also directs users to 'view_dispute' for updates.

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 well-structured with clear paragraphs for purpose, condition, process, post-action, and parameter. It is reasonably concise, though some details (e.g., 'Alice' specification) could be streamlined without loss of meaning.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations), the description covers purpose, use case, process, outcome, and next steps. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites or permissions but is otherwise 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It simply states 'job_id: The contract ID to dispute.' This adds minimal context beyond the schema (which says 'Job Id'). A more detailed explanation (e.g., format, source) would improve clarity.

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 ('dispute'), resource ('delivered Mode B contract'), and actor ('as the requester (Alice)'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'approve_delivery' and 'void_dispute' by specifying when to use ('if the deliverable does not meet the agreed specification').

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('if the deliverable does not meet the agreed specification') and provides post-dispute instructions (contact arbitrator). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the contact step.

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