users_resolve_user

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the HTTP verb and route. It never mentions the confirm flag or the preview-without-confirm behavior described in the schema, nor whether this is a safe read or a mutating call, leaving a real gap for a POST endpoint.

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 useful content (identifier options plus the exclusivity constraint) is compact and front-loaded, but the text is padded with a redundant route line, a restated 'Resolve a user' title, and a boilerplate 'Tags: Users Controller' line that add no selection value.

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 POST tool with nested body parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a confirm-gating mechanism, the description is under-specified. It omits the confirm behavior entirely and does not route the agent away from the three sibling getters that cover the same identifiers.

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 only 50%, and the body fields (id, username, shortUuid) carry no per-field descriptions. The description compensates partly by stating the mutual-exclusivity rule the schema does not encode, but it says nothing about the confirm parameter, so the coverage gap is not fully closed.

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 and resource ('Resolve a user') and enumerates the three accepted identifier types (ID, Short UUID, username), so the agent knows exactly what the tool accepts. However, it never differentiates itself from the near-identical siblings users_get_user_by_id, users_get_user_by_short_uuid, and users_get_user_by_username, which makes it ambiguous which one to pick.

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 supplies one invocation rule ('Exactly one of the fields must be provided'), which is genuinely useful guidance. But it gives no when-to-use framing relative to the three per-identifier getter siblings, so the agent must infer the routing on its own.

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