resolve_case_field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the domain-specific detail about Multi-select case field type ID 12, but does not disclose output format or behavior for invalid or unknown refs. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaningful context: numeric reference IDs, Multi-select field, type ID 12, textual values, and project scope.

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 three-parameter tool with fully documented schema and safety annotations, the description gives sufficient context for selection and invocation. The absence of an output schema leaves the exact return shape unspecified, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and clear purpose.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds overall context, such as the transformation from reference IDs to textual values, but no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 operation: resolving numeric reference IDs to textual values for a Multi-select case field. It identifies the field type (ID 12) and the project scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_case_fields or query_project.

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 clearly implies the intended use case: converting opaque numeric references into readable values for a Multi-select field in a project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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