dispute_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the key non-obvious side effect that funds remain in escrow (neither paid nor refunded) and that delivery is not reversible for free, plus that the counterparty can resubmit. It omits whether the dispute can be withdrawn, required permissions, and resulting job state.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and reason, then the consequence. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of the name or 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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool with two fully documented params, the description covers purpose, financial consequence, and the counterparty's next step. It lacks only secondary details like dispute reversibility and resulting job status.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema (job_id as the delivery being rejected, reason as what is wrong and what would be acceptable). The description adds no syntax or format 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 (reject) and resource (delivered work) plus the required accompanying action (say what is wrong). It implicitly contrasts with release_payment by noting the money is not paid out, so an agent can distinguish the dispute path from the accept path.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it: when delivered work is defective and the counterparty should fix and resubmit. It does not explicitly name release_payment as the alternative or state exclusions (e.g., pre-delivery jobs), but the escrow framing makes the choice condition obvious.

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