export_dispute_pack

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description corroborates the write behavior by saying it creates a new folder, and adds real context: the folder path, the file inventory, that a plain-text summary and a verifiable manifest are produced, and that the record is sealed. It does not discuss what happens on name collision beyond the schema's overwrite flag, and doesn't warn that non-idempotent repeat calls create new folders.

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?

Front-loaded and purposeful, but the long inventory sentence ('the buyer's own sealed intent and key..., how the buyer authenticated, the order and processor references, the delivery you give, a sealed statement...') is dense and hard to scan, and the closing sentence about whose decision submission is takes space without guiding invocation.

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 4-parameter write tool with nested delivery object, no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description covers return contents (folder, files, check result, summary) and the verification path via spr-verify. It leaves the overwrite/collision behavior and the delivery object's role only lightly touched, so it is close to but not fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds the important constraint that name is a folder name, not a path, and that record_id is the payment's identifier as list_records shows it, but it does not explain the optional delivery or overwrite parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (writes one payment's evidence into a new folder) with a precise resource and scope, plus an enumerated contents list. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like export_package and export_xbrl_csv by its dispute-evidence scope, and it names the target audience (a merchant answering a chargeback).

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 implies when to use it (answering a chargeback or payment dispute) but never explicitly contrasts it with export_package or export_xbrl_csv, nor states prerequisites such as needing a record_id from list_records beyond the schema hint. It also usefully bounds the tool's role by saying submission is the merchant's decision, but no explicit when-not-to-use rule is given.

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