production.facial_analyze_layer_conflicts

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the facial reference is immutable, candidates are new Actions evaluated through NLA tracks, the body Action is never modified, and speech input without timed phonemes fails with TIMING_INPUT_REQUIRED. The apply parameter sits slightly in tension with readOnlyHint=true, but the 'body Action is never modified' framing keeps it consistent with a non-destructive analysis tool.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with the plan-first rule; however, the opening 'facial_analyze_layer_conflicts:' merely repeats the tool name, and the semicolon-chained clauses mix workflow policy, failure modes, and organizational advice without clear separation.

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 values need not be described, but for a six-parameter tool with zero schema coverage the description leaves the core concept (what a layer conflict is, what 'evidence-based semantic mapping' produces) and four parameters undefined. An agent cannot reliably construct a call from this.

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 description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. It only explains two: apply (default false, plan-first) and facial (immutable plan.json reference). brief, intent, options, and object_name are entirely unexplained in both schema and 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?

The description names the domain ('M7 facial unit') and establishes the plan-first posture, but never states what a 'layer conflict' is or what the analysis returns. An agent knows the verb 'analyze' but not the resource being examined, and the siblings (facial_analyze_hybrid, facial_analyze_curves, facial_analyze_bones) are not distinguished from it in any way.

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?

It implies usage ('plan first, apply=false by default', speech needs timed phonemes) but gives no condition for choosing this tool over the dozens of facial analysis siblings, and no explicit when-not guidance. The 'Technical QA and artistic review stay separate' line is a workflow assertion, not a routing rule.

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