reels_resolve_asset

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description then adds genuinely non-obvious failure semantics — that candidates, rejected versions, and stale conversions are rejected — which tells the agent what kinds of inputs will fail and why. It still does not say how rejection surfaces (error vs. empty result) or whether resolution can trigger a re-conversion.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the rejection rules following. Nothing is redundant, though the second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic about the rejection mechanism.

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 two-required-parameter resolution tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation and its rejection behavior but leaves both parameters unexplained and never clarifies what the returned 'hashed asset reference' looks like or how it is consumed downstream. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, with clear gaps around inputs and return shape.

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 0% for both parameters; the schema supplies only regex patterns and no meaning for 'assetId' or 'variant'. The description mentions 'variant' in passing but never explains what an assetId refers to, what constitutes a 'verified reusable variant', or what valid values look like, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb ('Resolve') and a concrete input/output pair: a verified reusable variant mapped to a hashed asset reference. The domain qualifier 'for a model/image/audio field' scopes it usefully. It stops short of clearly distinguishing it from siblings like reels_get_asset or reels_preview_asset, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many siblings (get_asset, preview_asset, download_asset, register_asset). The phrase 'for a model/image/audio field' hints at context but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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