file_dispute

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

Discloses authentication requirements, scope, and consequences of frivolous disputes (trust score penalty). With no annotations, this carries full burden and handles it well.

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?

Concise yet comprehensive: purpose, instructions, warnings, return info, and example call. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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 4 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: inputs, side effects, return structure, and example response. Missing nothing critical.

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%, so description must add meaning. It explains interaction_id comes from a previous report, reason must justify the dispute. The optional 'evidence' parameter is mentioned but not detailed, slightly reducing score.

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?

Clearly states 'File a dispute against an interaction outcome', identifying verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like report_interaction and resolve_dispute.

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?

Explains when to use (after a reported interaction) and provides required parameters (interaction_id, reason, access_token). Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but context is clear.

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