tokportal_dispute_comment_task

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that execution is conditional on coverage status, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not detail side effects, reversibility, or authorization requirements, so the transparency is adequate but not rich.

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, 32 words. The first sentence defines the core action, the second adds a critical precondition. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, nested body, and no output schema, the description covers the state change and a key blocking condition. It could elaborate on what 'owned' means or typical success response, but overall it is sufficient for understanding.

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%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It provides no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states for id, body, and idempotency_key. 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 clearly states the verb 'Dispute' and the resource 'manually confirmed comment task', distinguishing it from siblings like approve, create, delete. The state transition 'returns to pending corrections' further clarifies the action.

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 explains when execution is blocked (TokPortal Coverage inactive) and provides a precondition: inspect MANAGED_ACCOUNT_TASK_BLOCKED and reactivate a recoverable account first. It does not explicitly compare to siblings, but the conditional guidance is valuable for correct usage.

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