resolve_record

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it covers archives, compares every title and alias in scope, requires context IDs to link to all of them, returns specific fields, handles fuzzy results, defines the 'me' special case, and warns that no match is not proof of absence. This is comprehensive transparency.

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 dense but each sentence adds value: purpose, scope, constraints, output, and cautions are all included without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically, though slightly long, it remains efficient.

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's complexity and the lack of annotations, the description covers essential aspects: matching scope, context constraints, output fields, handling of ambiguous results, special 'me' case, and a specific use case. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, especially with an output schema available.

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 explains the query parameter (name, alias, ID) and context_record_ids (require links to all), but does not explicitly describe collection_id beyond a hint in the create_record use case. This partial compensation earns a mid-range score.

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 tool's purpose: to resolve a name, misspelling, confirmed alias, or known stable ID, and explicitly includes archives. It differentiates from siblings like search_records and batch_resolve_records by its resolution focus and mentions a specific use case for create_record, making its role distinct.

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 provides clear usage context, such as requiring clarification or independent identity evidence before writes for fuzzy results, and directs resolution of titles for create_record. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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