Resolve Face

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it errors on miss or ambiguity and resolves to the 'current' FaceN index, implying state-dependent indexing. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-load the core purpose and failure behavior, then provide a precise usage scenario. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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 resolver with two parameters, the description covers purpose, failure behavior, and typical use. It does not specify the exact return type or explicitly define 'handle' and 'tag', but the phrase '(object, FaceN)' supplies enough context for most agents.

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 partially explains the parameters through '(object, FaceN)', implying handle is the object identifier and tag is the face tag, but it does not explicitly define valid formats, sources, or examples for either parameter.

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') and resource ('face tag') with a clear result ('current FaceN index'), and the 'Errors on miss or ambiguity' behavior adds precision. It is distinct from the sibling resolve_edge, which resolves edges instead of faces.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when passing a (object, 'FaceN') reference to tools that do not accept tags directly, with a concrete example ('legacy FEM constraints'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough.

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