disputes_update

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, so the safety burden is light. The description still adds real value beyond them: every change is recorded in history (audit trail) and setting status to 'sent' without a date defaults to today.

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 core actions and followed by the two behavioral rules that matter. No filler.

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?

With annotations covering the mutation profile and an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and the one surprising default. It could be slightly more complete by noting that only `id` is required and that unspecified fields are left untouched.

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 carry the parameter burden and largely does: it maps status, sent_date, and note to concrete effects and supplies a non-obvious default rule for sent_date. It never mentions the required `id` or enumerates the status values, leaving small gaps.

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 ("Change") plus concrete resources: status, sent date, note on a dispute. It is clearly the mutation counterpart to disputes_create/delete/get/list, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the field list (use this to modify an existing dispute rather than create one), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to siblings such as disputes_create or disputes_delete.

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