Return YouAndEye to neutral

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

The description adds concrete behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clears pending expressions and restores a safe autonomous neutral face immediately. This complements the idempotentHint and clarifies that the operation has a calming/reset effect rather than a persistent destructive one.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and states the immediate result. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, this description is fully sufficient. It explains the operation, the effect, and the safety-oriented outcome, so an agent can invoke it correctly without additional context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the description accurately describes the tool's action without any parameter ambiguity.

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 uses specific verbs ('Clear', 'restore') and a clear resource ('pending expressions', 'safe autonomous neutral face'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like express, face_status, and face_capabilities by describing a state-resetting operation.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when there are pending expressions that should be cleared and the face should return to neutral. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended context is unmistakable from the action described.

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