resolve_title

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

Annotations are completely absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions storing canonical matches, implying a write side-effect, but does not explain whether the operation is idempotent, whether it overwrites existing records, what authentication or permissions are required, or any rate limits. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical details (parameter usage, when to use, side effects) that a longer, better-structured description would include. It is not front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information.

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?

Given the tool performs a non-trivial operation (search, persist, return IDs) and has sibling tools with overlapping purposes, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'canonical matches' means, nor does it clarify when to use this over get_candidates or discover_titles. The existence of an output schema covers return format, but that does not compensate for the missing usage and parameter guidance.

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% — the schema provides no descriptions for query, year, or media_type. The tool description does not mention these parameters at all, so it offers no compensation for the coverage gap. An agent has no idea how 'query' is matched, whether 'year' is a filter or a hint, or what values media_type can take.

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 clear action: search TMDB, store canonical matches, and return local title IDs. It identifies the resource (TMDB) and the deliverable (local title IDs), which is specific and not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like get_candidates or discover_titles, so it loses a point.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites (e.g., whether a pre-existing title record is needed), or when not to use it. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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