invoice_dispute_response_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: it generates a professional, calm, non-defensive reply. It describes the three response modes (explain, adjust, clarify) and their intended uses. It also mentions that the email does not count against a monthly draft limit. However, it does not detail potential limitations or side effects, but overall it provides solid behavioral context.

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: it starts with the core purpose, then lists the modes, contrasts with siblings, and adds tone and a bonus note. It is front-loaded with the most important information. While it is a bit lengthy, every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 complexity of 8 parameters (2 required, 1 enum) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the scenario, modes, and differentiation from siblings. It provides enough context for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose and when to use it. The absence of output schema is acceptable as the tool generates an email, whose format is implied.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the three modes and providing examples of what to use in explanation and adjustment parameters. It clarifies the context of each parameter beyond the schema's descriptions, making the tool more intuitive.

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: writing a professional reply when a client disputes an invoice charge. It specifies the three response modes (explain, adjust, clarify) and distinguishes this tool from related siblings like late_payment_reminder, budget_update_email, and scope_change_email. The verb 'Write' and resource 'professional reply' are specific and 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?

The description explicitly defines when to use this tool: when a client disputes or questions a charge. It provides contrasting contexts for sibling tools (e.g., late_payment_reminder for non-disputed non-payment, budget_update_email for pre-invoice cost increases, scope_change_email for formal change orders). It also clarifies that this is for the specific situation where the client has received the invoice and is pushing back on a line item.

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