remnawave_users_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. 'Sensitive-read' hints at read-only and security implications but does not explain what the payload, confirmToken, or mutationApproved do, nor whether the tool has side effects or requires authentication.

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 extremely short (one sentence) but is under-specified. Conciseness should come without sacrificing essential information; here, vital details are missing.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It does not mention return value, error handling, or how the tool processes the payload.

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 description adds no information about the four parameters (payload, confirmToken, responseMode, mutationApproved). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the agent has no clues about parameter usage or valid values beyond the limited enum.

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 'Remnawave users.resolve (sensitive-read)' identifies the tool as a user resolution operation and flags it as sensitive and read-only, but does not specify what exactly is being resolved (conflicts? tokens? IDs?). This vagueness does not distinguish it well from sibling tools like users_get or users_get_by_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this vs. alternatives. The description lacks any 'when to use', 'when not to use', or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent without decision support.

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