face_warp_set_intensity

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that only intensity changes, that existing brush data is preserved, and that the change is undoable (可撤销). Those are exactly the mutation-scope and reversibility facts an agent needs. It does not cover failure behavior, required permissions, or what a successful call returns, which keeps it below a 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its constraints, followed by the path-sourcing rule and the item_index default. There is minor overlap with schema text, but nothing is wasted or out of order.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mutation scope, reversibility, path sourcing, and the item_index default. The gap is the project_path/instance_id selection and any hint about the response, though the schema does document the project targeting.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented, and the description largely restates them (0–100 intensity, object_path from face_warp_list, item_index omitted means all). It adds no meaning for instance_id or project_path, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource (modify the 塑型画笔 intensity), gives the numeric domain 0–100, and anchors it to a familiar concept (the inspector intensity slider). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling face_warp_list by naming it as the source of object_path, so an agent can tell the read tool from the write tool without opening either schema.

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 clearly states the operational context: object_path should come from face_warp_list or a uniquely-locating trailing segment, and omitting item_index sets every brush item. That is enough to select and drive the tool, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or statement of what happens when the path is ambiguous or missing.

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