resolve_tracks

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

Explains substantial behavior beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint: no silent substitution/dropping, artist matching requirement, what strict/fuzzy modes do, and no chart-popularity bias. This tells an agent exactly what to expect.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place; the guarantee and core behavior are front-loaded, and the strict/fuzzy explanation follows naturally. No 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 resolver with output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the key matching policy, edge cases (sped-up edits, covers, live versions), and the strict toggle. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description is the only source. It explains the candidates' {artist, title} shape and the strict default/behavior, but could be more explicit about candidate object field requirements beyond the shorthand notation.

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') and resource ('{artist, title} candidates' to verified Spotify track URIs), with an explicit guarantee about the two possible outcomes. This distinguishes it from search/list tools in the sibling set.

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?

Describes clear context: resolving candidate track objects to verified URIs, with a strict/fuzzy matching toggle. It doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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