resolve_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the "[READ] POST /api/users/resolve" line simply restates that a POST here is non-mutating. That restatement is mildly useful given POST normally implies a write, but the description says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or what is returned. Against annotation coverage, 3 is the right level.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the identifier constraint before the endpoint marker. The opening fragment "Resolve a user" is immediately repeated by the fuller sentence, a minor redundancy that costs it a point.

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 single nested body parameter with no output schema, the description covers the essential one-of constraint but omits what resolution returns, whether the identifier types have different behavior, and how it relates to the many similarly named lookup siblings. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 individual fields are documented, but the schema imposes no cardinality constraint while the description supplies the critical "exactly one of" rule across id/username/shortUuid. That is genuine added meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 ("Resolve") and resource ("a user") plus the three accepted identifier forms, which is concrete. However, it does not distinguish itself from the very similar siblings find_user, get_user_by_id, get_user_by_short_uuid, and get_user_by_username, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it would pick this tool over those.

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 only guidance is an input constraint ("Exactly one of the fields must be provided"), not a usage rule. There is no statement of when to prefer resolve_user over find_user or the three get_user_by_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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