resolve_edgeResolve an edge tag to its current EdgeN index, ensuring accurate references. Errors on miss or ambiguity to prevent incorrect operations.
Resolve an edge tag to the current EdgeN index. Errors on miss or ambiguity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | ||
| handle | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds error behavior for misses and ambiguity, which is not captured by the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations. The word 'current' also signals that the EdgeN index is dynamic. No contradiction with the annotations exists.
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 concise sentences carry all the information without wasted words. The first sentence states the core operation and result; the second adds the key failure mode. This is appropriately front-loaded.
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 simple read-only resolution tool, the description conveys purpose and error behavior. However, it omits the meaning of 'handle', the exact return type beyond 'EdgeN index', and any details about tag format. These gaps matter because there is no output schema to fill them.
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%, so the description must compensate. It gives some implicit meaning for 'tag' ('edge tag'), but 'handle' is completely unexplained, and no formats, examples, or relationships between parameters are provided.
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 ('Resolve'), a clear resource ('edge tag'), and a defined outcome ('current EdgeN index'). It also states the failure condition, which makes the tool's purpose precise and distinguishes it from sibling tools that resolve faces or list edges.
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 gives some implied usage guidance by indicating resolution is only valid when a unique, existing tag is present. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of alternatives like resolve_face, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.