resolve_case_field

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context (this is a lookup/normalization operation on type-12 fields), but says nothing about behavior on unknown/invalid refs, missing fields, or unmapped values.

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. The verb, the input (numeric ref IDs), the constraint (type ID 12), the output (textual values) and the scope (specific project) are all delivered without redundancy.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description states the essential contract: numeric refs in, textual values out. What is missing is return shape detail (single value vs. mapping when an array is passed) and error behavior, which matters slightly given no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so refs, field_name and project_id are all documented in the schema with examples. The description only echoes the project scoping and the fact that refs are numeric IDs, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (Resolve), a precise resource (numeric reference IDs of a Multi-select case field), and the transformation performed (into textual values). It even pins the field type (type ID 12) and project scope, so an agent can distinguish it from generic field-listing siblings like get_case_fields.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer it is needed when it holds numeric ref IDs and needs their labels. However, no when-not-to-use is given and no alternative is named (e.g., that get_case_fields returns definitions rather than resolved values), so the routing is left to inference.

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