loyalteez_resolve_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: wallet creation as a side effect and a deterministic email mapping ({platform}_{userId}@loyalteez.app), which implies idempotent retries. However, it says nothing about required auth/permissions, rate limits, or what happens on conflict or invalid platform IDs.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the core operation and the side effect, then the mapping rule, then a reference link. No filler sentences and nothing that could be cut without losing meaning.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation and side effect but omits the return shape (presumably a wallet address) and error/edge behavior. An agent can call it correctly but cannot anticipate the response, which is a real gap when no output schema exists.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how platform and platformUserId are combined into a deterministic identity. It does not explain brandId or platformUsername semantics, so it only partially extends the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Convert any platform identity to a Loyalteez wallet') and immediately adds the side effect ('Creates wallet if needed'). No sibling tool in the list performs identity-to-wallet resolution, so the agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Convert any platform identity to a Loyalteez wallet', but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use and no named alternative among the many siblings (e.g. get_user_balance, get_user_stats) that also take a user reference. The 'See also' pointer is a doc link, not usage guidance.

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