production.facial_analyze_bones

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent behavior, but the description adds meaningful context: candidates are new Actions evaluated through NLA tracks, the body Action is never modified, and speech requires explicit timed phonemes/visemes. However, the phrasing is cryptic and not fully clear, so it adds some but not exceptional 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?

The description is a dense paragraph that leads with a redundant restatement of the name. Key information is buried in jargon, and the sentences are not front-loaded to aid quick comprehension.

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 tool with six parameters, an output schema, and many sibling alternatives, the description is incomplete. It lacks a clear purpose statement and omits parameter semantics, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all six parameters. It only hints at 'apply' (default false) and 'facial' (immutable plan.json reference), leaving brief, intent, options, and object_name completely unexplained.

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 opens by restating the tool name ('facial_analyze_bones: M7 facial unit') and then offers only vague jargon like 'Evidence-based semantic mapping (never names only)' without stating a concrete action or resource. It does not differentiate from the many sibling facial_analyze_* tools (e.g., facial_analyze_jaw, facial_analyze_shape_keys).

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?

Only a procedural hint is given ('plan first, apply=false by default'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related analysis tools. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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