resolve_party

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

The description discloses the key behavior: creation on first contact and return format. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It could be improved by noting idempotency or error conditions.

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 extremely concise, containing only two sentences that front-load the core action and return structure. Every sentence is informative and there is no wasted text.

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 5 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what it returns, and the key creation behavior. It could be more explicit about the case when the friend already exists.

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 description adds little beyond summarizing the parameters. It mentions 'provider + externalId on a channel' but does not provide additional context beyond the 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 clearly states the verb 'resolve' and the resource 'external identity into a friend record', with the specific behavior of creating on first contact. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_friend' which requires an existing record.

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 implies the tool should be used when you have an external identity and need a friend record, creating if necessary. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like 'get_friend' or 'link_identity'.

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