Configure the connected agent's YouAndEye identity

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent already knows mutation is possible, yet the description never warns which action (reset) is destructive or whether changes are reversible. The only genuine behavioral addition is that 'preview always shows neutral, listening, thinking, and success', which is a useful but narrow disclosure for a tool with seven mutating actions.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the resource scope is stated before the operation list. The seven-verb enumeration is dense but appropriately compact; slightly better ordering would front-load the object before the verbs.

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 no explanation, but for an 11-parameter, seven-action tool the description omits prerequisites (e.g. must an approved profile exist before activate?), the preview/approve/activate lifecycle, and any mapping between actions and required optional parameters. The gaps are substantial for this complexity.

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 11 parameters, and the description explains none of them — not accent, gaze_style, blink_style, signature_message, nor which optional fields each action requires or ignores. It contributes only the action verb names, which the schema enum already provides.

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?

It names the resource ('the profile bound to the stable local agent identity') and enumerates the operations in verb form, so an agent knows this tool manages the agent's own identity profile rather than some other resource. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like face_status or face_capabilities, which would be needed for a 5.

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 lists the seven actions but gives no guidance on when to choose each one, what order they belong in (e.g. create → preview → approve → activate), or when this tool should not be used instead of the sibling face tools. The action list merely mirrors the schema enum, so no usage value is added.

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