escrow__dispute_escrow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the state transition and the role of an arbiter, but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or reversibility. Basic transparency but not comprehensive.

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 short (two sentences plus prefix), front-loaded with action and context. However, the prefix may be considered extraneous. Overall efficient but lacks parameter detail.

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 state-transition tool, the description covers the essential action and next step (arbiter resolves). But no return value explanation, no detail on output schema, and given the large sibling set, more context on integration would be helpful.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter (escrow_id is required, reason is optional). The description adds no value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.

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: moving a FUNDED escrow to DISPUTED. It includes the precondition (funded) and the subsequent resolution by an arbiter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fund, release, refund.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when a funded escrow needs to be disputed. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but the precondition is clear. Missing explicit comparison with siblings.

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