Coda Resolve Browser Link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context — it resolves to specific resource kinds and returns a type discriminator — though it says nothing about auth or failure behavior on malformed URLs.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then sources, then routing rule. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, yet the description still usefully previews the type field. It is nearly complete for a single-parameter resolver, missing only edge-case behavior.

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 the url parameter is already documented. The description adds value by naming the accepted URL sources (address bar, shared link) and the set of resource types the URL may point to, going beyond the schema's single-line description.

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 (resolve/convert) and resource (browser URL → API IDs), and enumerates the target resource kinds (doc, page, table, row, column). No sibling tool performs URL-to-ID resolution, so the purpose is unmistakable among the listed tools.

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?

"Use this as the first step when a user provides a Coda URL instead of IDs" gives a clear triggering condition. No alternatives are named, but none exist among the siblings, so no exclusion guidance is needed.

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