dispute_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the state effect (freezes the 7-day auto-accept, task stays submitted), the required resolution paths, and the auth requirement (keypair auth). It omits side effects such as reputation impact of the dispute or whether a dispute is reversible.

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?

Three tight sentences with the action and its constraint front-loaded, then the state consequence, then auth. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context an agent needs: precondition (delivered work), state freeze, resolution routes, and auth. Minor gaps remain around outcome/reputation effects.

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 task_id, reason, rating, and rating_comment are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('Dispute the delivered work on a task') and constrains the actor ('a task you created'), which separates it from sibling operations like accept_deliverable or request_revision.

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?

Explicitly names the follow-up alternatives (accept_deliverable, cancel_task) and gives the condition that gates one of them ('delivered work can only be cancelled after a dispute'). It does not mention request_revision, the closest sibling, so the when-to-use guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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