submit_dispute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is an irreversible external write. The description adds the confirmed=true gate, which is real value, but does not say what gets submitted, what happens to a dispute after submission, or that it cannot be undone beyond the destructive 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the precondition. No waste, though it is terse enough to under-specify the submission consequences.

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?

Covers the action and the safety gate, but for a destructive external submission with no output schema the description omits what a successful or failed submission returns and what the ticketing system does with the dispute. Adequate but incomplete for the stakes.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters including the confirmed gate. The description adds no syntax, format, or behavioral meaning beyond what the schema and enum already provide. Baseline 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+resource: submit a dispute, and scopes it to a 'previously previewed' dispute, distinguishing it from the sibling generate_dispute. It does not name check_status or other siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Implies a workflow precondition (must be previously previewed, confirmed=true safety gate) but never explicitly says when to use this vs generate_dispute or check_status. The gate is stated, but the routing context is left to inference.

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