generate_with_face

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of maintaining consistency and references a prerequisite (saved character card), but does not discuss failure modes, permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the character doesn't exist. It adds some context beyond the schema but leaves gaps.

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 single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning, efficiently conveying purpose and key benefit.

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 generation tool with a small schema, the description covers the core purpose and prerequisite adequately. However, it lacks explicit comparison to the similar sibling generate_image and does not mention output expectations, but given the schema richness and tool simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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% with each parameter described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the concept of consistency and saved character card, which relates to the 'character' parameter, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already gives. No significant compensation needed.

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 clearly states the tool generates a new image using a saved character card for face/subject consistency. It uses a specific verb (generate), identifies the resource (saved character card), and distinguishes this from generic image generation by mentioning consistency, differentiating it from siblings like generate_image.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you have a saved character card and want face/subject consistency. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling generate_image is an obvious alternative, but no direct comparison is made, so it falls short of a 5.

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