meld_resolve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the meld 'dissolves shortly after' (a time-sensitive side effect) and that it 'returns the other party's context' (output behavior). It does not mention failure modes or authentication, but for a simple tool, these are not critical. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then states the key behavior (return and dissolution). Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient.

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 three simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and a critical time-sensitive warning. It does not explain error cases or prerequisites, but these are not necessary for a tool of this simplicity. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a brief clarification ('Submit your context/answer') that aligns with the 'context' parameter, but it does not add new information about 'code' or 'pin' beyond what the schema provides. This is a baseline score for a well-covered schema.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('a meld you received a link for'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like meld_create (creating) and meld_read (reading). The phrase 'you received a link for' adds the exact context of use, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when you have a link to a meld and need to submit your context/answer. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context 'you received a link for' implies this is for resolving incoming melds, not for creating or reading. This is clear enough for an agent to select correctly, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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