resolve_tracks

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 discloses the return format and clarifies that matching results are split into resolved and unresolved groups, which is useful. But it does not describe matching tolerances, error behavior, or whether this is strictly a read-only operation.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main purpose and output shape are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is placed at the end, making it easy to parse.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema available, the description provides enough context about what to pass and what to expect. It does not include an example or define edge cases, but those are not critical given the provided output schema and the straightforward input structure.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying each pick is a {title, artist} object, which is materially more specific than the schema's generic 'additionalProperties: string'. It still leaves some ambiguity about whether title and artist are individually required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('real Spotify tracks') and explains the tool's output shape ('{resolved: [...], unresolved: [...]}'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search, play, or list_playlists, which address different actions.

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?

'Use to preview before building' gives clear contextual guidance, implying the tool is intended before playlist construction or mutation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the sibling list and phrasing make the intended workflow reasonably clear.

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