Resolve Author

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world; the description adds the admin-role auth requirement, which annotations do not cover and which materially affects whether an agent can call it. It also notes the resolution mechanism ('registered aliases'), but does not say what happens on a miss.

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, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the prerequisite trailing. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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, and the read-only safety profile plus admin gating are covered. The one real gap is unresolvable input: the description does not say whether an unknown author errors or falls back to the raw name.

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 both params are documented in the schema. The description adds no detail on the author string format or on when workspace_id should be supplied for isolation, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a raw author name to its canonical identity using registered aliases.' Clearly distinguishes from alias-management siblings like team_list_author_aliases or team_consolidate_authors by being the single-name lookup, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

'Requires admin role' gives a useful prerequisite, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus team_list_author_aliases, team_add_author_alias, or team_consolidate_authors. Usage is implied by the verb rather than guided.

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