mp_resolve_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the transformation performed (extracting a numeric route/area ID) and the accepted input formats, which is strong transparency for a simple resolver. It does not specify behavior for invalid or ambiguous inputs, but this is a relatively minor gap for a utility of this simplicity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to explaining what the tool does and what inputs it accepts.

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 one-parameter utility with full schema documentation, the description covers the input forms and clearly states the expected output. The main missing piece is the exact return format or error behavior, but given the low complexity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description is largely complete.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of the urlOrId parameter with a helpful description of accepted formats. The main description reinforces those formats but does not add substantial new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and clearly identifies the resource (numeric route or area ID) and the accepted input forms (URL or prefixed ID). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mp_search or mp_get_route, which operate on queries or resolved IDs rather than converting input into an ID.

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 implies the tool should be used when you have a Mountain Project URL or prefixed ID and need the numeric ID for subsequent calls, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, though the intended context is fairly inferable.

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