tokportal_dispute_comment_task

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

The annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that execution is blocking on coverage status, that the operation reverts a task to pending corrections, and references a specific error condition. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and result; the second adds a critical precondition. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core action, the effect, and a key blocking condition. It does not describe the return format or other potential errors, but given the lack of an output schema and the tool's focused scope, this is adequately complete.

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 100% with descriptions for all parameters (id, body with nested reason, idempotency_key). The description does not add extra information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Dispute') and clearly identifies the resource ('manually confirmed comment task'), stating the precise outcome ('Returns an owned manually_confirmed task to pending corrections'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve, delete, or get.

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 provides clear context about when the tool is blocked (TokPortal Coverage inactive) and instructs to inspect MANAGED_ACCOUNT_TASK_BLOCKED and reactivate a recoverable account first. It implies usage for reversing a confirmation, though it does not explicitly compare to sibling alternatives.

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