escrow__dispute_escrow

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It states the state transition and that an arbiter subsequently resolves it. This gives useful context but lacks details on idempotency, side effects, or error conditions.

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?

Description is two sentences: first states core purpose, second adds future process. The bracket label '[escrow — trustless escrow & settlement (exactly-once)]' may be extraneous but not damaging. It is fairly concise.

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 with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, condition (funded), and aftermath (arbiter). However, it lacks parameter details and error/requirement information, so it is adequate but not 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% (no descriptions for parameters). The description does not explain 'escrow_id' or 'reason' beyond naming them. It mentions 'Move a FUNDED escrow' but does not clarify parameter semantics or format. Parameter names are somewhat self-documenting, but the description fails to add any meaningful detail.

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?

Description clearly states 'Move a FUNDED escrow to DISPUTED', specifying the exact verb ('Move') and resource ('escrow'), and the state transition (funded to disputed). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like escrow__fund_escrow, escrow__release_escrow, etc.

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?

Implicitly indicates use when escrow is funded ('Move a FUNDED escrow'). However, no explicit when-not or alternative guidance is given. The mention of an arbiter later provides context but not comparative usage.

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