resolve_edge

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the error-on-miss/ambiguity contract, which is real behavioral information, but says nothing about permissions, whether the lookup is a pure read, idempotency, or what the resolved index is relative to.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The brevity is appropriate in form, though the economy shades into under-specification given the missing parameter context.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It does not tell the agent what a resolved EdgeN index is used for or how it relates to handles, leaving a real gap in how to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must define both required parameters. It partially explains 'tag' as an edge tag, but 'handle' is never mentioned at all, leaving a required parameter entirely undefined in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Resolve an edge tag') and states the outcome ('to the current EdgeN index'), which is clear enough to separate it from siblings like resolve_face and list_edges without opening a schema. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it complements, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It states failure behavior ('Errors on miss or ambiguity') but gives no indication of when to use this over resolve_face, list_edges, or query_faces, and no prerequisites for obtaining a valid edge tag or handle. The use case is only faintly implied.

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