resolve_dispute

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the authorization process, side effects of each resolution option (penalties), and that it returns updated status. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a summary sentence, bulleted auth steps, and list of options. It is slightly verbose on auth details but every sentence adds value. Front-loading is good.

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 no output schema, the description mentions return of updated dispute status and resolution. It covers resolution options and auth, but could elaborate on error conditions or prerequisites like the dispute being open (already mentioned). Still adequate.

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 compensate. It explains the 'resolution' parameter via options (upheld, dismissed, split) and clarifies 'access_token' usage. However, 'dispute_id' and 'resolution_note' lack explicit description, though their purpose is easily inferred.

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 tool's purpose: 'Resolve an open dispute.' It specifies the verb (resolve) and resource (dispute), distinct from sibling 'file_dispute' which would create a 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?

The description explicitly requires arbitrator authorization and details the auth flow, but it does not directly compare to alternatives or specify when not to use it. However, the resolution options and auth requirements provide clear context.

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