void_dispute

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses behavior: permissionless call, failure on boundary block, status change to Voided, fund distribution (each side reclaims principal, forfeited dispute fee), and that the call fails if timeout not yet passed.

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 relatively long but each sentence serves a purpose, structured into logical paragraphs (purpose, condition, consequences, prerequisites). Could be slightly more concise but maintains clarity.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers entry conditions, side effects, and subsequent steps. No significant gaps remain for a complex transaction tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: 'The Disputed contract ID to void.' This clarifies the parameter's role, though additional constraints (e.g., format) are absent.

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 (void a disputed contract), the specific condition (arbitrator never resolved), and differentiates from sibling tools like void_claim_requester by explaining the recovery path.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use (stale dispute after timeout), the strict block height condition, that it's permissionless, and the need to check view_contract and get_chain_info beforehand. Warns against assuming timeout values.

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