disputes_create

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation. The description adds a useful privacy/safety instruction about not using full account numbers, but does not explain side effects, permissions, or what happens to duplicate submissions despite the non-idempotent hint.

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 two short sentences with the purpose stated first and the parameter guidance second. It is efficient, though the second sentence mixes two separate constraints in a way that could be clearer.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a six-parameter creation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin: it does not document most parameters, defaults such as status='draft,' or behavioral expectations around the create operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only addresses party_type values and item_description content; party_name, reason, status, and sent_date are left undocumented, and party_type enum values are already present in the schema.

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 says 'Start tracking a dispute,' which conveys creation of a dispute record. It is reasonably clear as a distinct action from list/get/update/delete siblings, though 'start tracking' is softer and less precise than 'create.'

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?

It gives a narrow data-entry guideline ('use the item's description, not full account numbers') but does not explain when to use this tool versus disputes_update, disputes_get, or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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