Creates a new digital twin identity profile from a name and high-resolution frontal face image URL, enabling consistent identity use across photo and video generation.
Create a new digital twin identity profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of identity. | |
| faceImageUrl | Yes | High-res clear frontal face image URL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: not whether creating an identity consumes credits, whether the operation is idempotent or fails on duplicate names, whether the face image is validated or moderated, or whether creation is immediate. For a mutation that likely has cost and account-level effects, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized, though it is under-informative rather than over-stuffed, so brevity here reflects thinness as much as discipline.
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 low-complexity two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. It still leaves the agent guessing about the returned identity identifier, credit cost, and failure modes, which matter because other tools consume identities.
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%, with both 'name' and 'faceImageUrl' documented in the input schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra meaning about format, constraints, or how the face URL is used, which matches the baseline for fully-covered schemas.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new digital twin identity profile'), which clearly separates it from list_identities and delete_identity in the sibling set. It does not, however, explicitly name siblings or clarify what an 'identity' resource is used for downstream.
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?
There is no guidance on when to create an identity versus reuse an existing one (e.g., call list_identities first), no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer the workflow from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.