Dispose (create + commit)

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it commits a regulated record, defaults to dry-run, requires confirm:true to execute, and notes that FastBound may auto-create the receiving FFL's acquisition reported via headers. It does not fully describe return structure or all side effects, but with only destructiveHint=false provided, this is strong disclosure.

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 sentences with no wasted words: purpose, FFL-specific guidance, and the critical dry-run/confirm behavior. Front-loaded with the core action, then details. The final 'Write.' is terse but acceptable as a concise safety hint.

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 complex tool with 17 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: item GUID references, FFL transfer setup, and dry-run/commit semantics. It does not explain return values or all parameter interactions, but the schema covers individual fields, and the description provides enough for typical use.

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 59%, so the description partially compensates by explaining key parameters: items reference inventory GUIDs, requestType=Regular for FFL transfers, otherTransfereeEmails for recipient FFL users, and confirm controls dry-run vs execution. These clarifications add meaning not obvious from the schema alone, though many nested contact fields remain only schema-documented.

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 tool records and commits a disposition in one step, using 'Record a disposition and commit it in one step' with a specific verb and resource. It names examples (sale, FFL transfer) and contrasts with the two-step pattern implied by sibling tools like create_pending_disposition and commit_disposition.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: FFL transfers should set requestType=Regular and otherTransfereeEmails, and the tool is dry-run by default until confirm:true is passed. It does not name a specific alternative tool for two-step disposition scenarios, but the 'one step' phrasing and sibling names make the distinction clear.

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