fusion_resolve_value

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool runs as a normal guarded SELECT on the read channel and is audited like any other query. It also explains the four-outcome model and emphasizes the ambiguous case where candidates are returned for the user to choose. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context that aligns with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint.

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 front-loaded with a crisp one-line purpose, followed by a useful example, an explicit invocation rule, a rationale, and an important ambiguity warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the argument list is concise and directly tied to the schema.

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 two-parameter resolution tool, the description covers when to use it, how to pass parameters, matching behavior, ambiguous-result handling, and safety/auditing context. The output schema can carry the exact return-value details, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Input schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully defines both parameters: field is the REST attribute name with a concrete example, and text is what the user said with matching semantics ('case-insensitively as a substring'). This completely compensates for the bare 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 transformation: 'Turn a name the user said into the id the API wants,' and gives a concrete example mapping RequisitioningBUId to 'the Egypt BU'. It also explicitly instructs when to invoke it ('Call this for every id-shaped field before putting it in a payload'), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like fusion_run_query.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use rule: call this for every id-shaped field before building a payload. It also explains why direct alternatives fail ('all candidate paths answer HTTP 404') and warns the agent never to pick an ambiguous match itself, which is essential decision-making guidance.

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