ebay_contest_payment_dispute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the required OAuth scope but does not describe side effects (e.g., dispute status update), irreversibility, rate limits, or safety traits. The behavioral impact is vague.

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 concise with three short sentences covering purpose, usage context, and OAuth scope. It is front-loaded but could be better structured (e.g., separate scope line). No superfluous content.

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 has 3 parameters (one nested) and no output schema, the description should explain the outcome of contesting (e.g., what happens to the dispute) and any prerequisites beyond scope. It lacks these details, making it incomplete for proper invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema (e.g., no clarification of returnAddress usage or revisionNumber purpose). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Contest a payment dispute') and its purpose ('by providing evidence'), with a verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like ebay_accept_payment_dispute or ebay_add_payment_dispute_evidence, which limits differentiation.

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?

It provides context ('when you disagree with the buyer claim and want to provide proof') but does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives (e.g., accept or add evidence). No exclusions are given.

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