Dispose (NFA)

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: dry-run behavior by default and the need to pass confirm:true to execute. The 'Write' tag also signals mutation. There is no contradiction with the destructiveHint:false annotation. The description could add more about side effects (e.g., whether the disposition is final or reversible), but the dry-run disclosure is valuable.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that deliver the essential purpose and the critical dry-run/execute distinction. Every sentence earns its place; 'Write' is a terse but clear mutation indicator. It is well front-loaded and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 17 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits return-value behavior, prerequisites (e.g., how items must be structured, whether a pending disposition is needed), and the significance of the many contact/external ID fields. The dry-run distinction is helpful but incomplete for such a complex operation.

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 only 41%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. It only mentions confirm implicitly and items generically ('inventory items'), without explaining the required type, date, or any of the many optional parameters. The schema provides descriptions for some parameters, but the description adds almost no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the confirm flag.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Record and commit an NFA disposition for inventory items.' This distinguishes it from sibling disposition tools like dispose, dispose_destroyed, and dispose_theft_loss by specifying 'NFA'. The added note about dry-run and confirm further clarifies the tool's role.

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 for use—NFA dispositions—and critical operational guidance ('Dry-run by default; pass confirm:true'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5. It implies rather than explicitly contrasts with sibling dispose tools.

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