resolve_creative_mechanic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful process context about assessing behavior in a private Host Panel Creative context and checking documented API support, but it does not disclose permissions, side effects, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then follows with usage context. It is reasonably concise, though the second sentence is long and could be tighter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the trigger condition, the kind of input expected, and the tool's intended workflow context, making it largely complete for this resolution tool.

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?

There is one required parameter, prompt, with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates partly by indicating that the prompt is a mechanic label and giving many examples, but it does not clarify the expected format or syntax.

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 states a specific verb and resource: recognize Creative mechanic labels and return a docs-backed authoring workflow. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as recommend_mechanic_apis.

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 gives a clear trigger condition: call first for any ambiguous mechanic label, with an extensive list of examples and unfamiliar names. It does not state when not to use it or name explicit alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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