Resolve Resource URLs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the required permission scope ('Read all data'), the delegate-to-contact token variant, and the conditional behavior that the URL is suppressed when the caller lacks view access. The trailing 'Read-only account operation.' restates the annotations rather than adding value.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. But the pasted permission block is bulky boilerplate and the trailing fragment 'Read-only account operation.' is redundant with the annotations and reads as an artifact.

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?

With no output schema, the description does explain the return (canonical app URL(s)) and its conditional nature, and it covers auth requirements that the schema cannot. It is nearly complete; only the sibling boundary and the 'account' parameter behavior are left unaddressed.

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 baseline is 3. The description maps loosely to two of the three params ('hashed ID and type') but adds nothing about the 'account' parameter or the meaning of the type enum values beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb (resolves) and resource (a resource's hashed ID and type) with a concrete outcome (canonical app URL / deep link openable in the Wistia UI). It does not name or differentiate itself from the nearby 'resolve_share_link' sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary between the two.

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?

Usage is implied by the stated input and output, and the description notes the precondition that the URL is only returned when the authenticated user can view the resource. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against alternatives such as resolve_share_link or get_media.

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