IvedaAI: FaceTarget

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description aligns with DELETE operations. It adds useful context beyond annotations by explaining response JSON semantics ('status' is the HTTP status code; 'truncated'/'timedOut' flag cut-off responses) and noting that create/update bodies require 'name'. It does not disclose auth requirements or rate limits, but the added response context earns a solid score.

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 formatted as a reference list with each endpoint on its own line, front-loaded with the response JSON note. It is long due to 14 operations, but each entry is compact and uses consistent formatting. There is minor redundancy (e.g., repeated 'path:' markers) and no prose summary, but overall it is well-structured for an API reference.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (14 operations), generic input schema, and no output schema, the description provides operation-specific parameters, required markers, file upload details, and a pointer to ivedaai_get_schema for full fields. Gaps remain: response structures beyond status/truncated flags are not described, and concepts like 'unqualified' are not explained, but the description is largely sufficient for operation selection.

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 input schema only provides generic body/file/path/query wrappers and an operation enum. The description precisely enumerates endpoint-specific query, path, and body parameters, marks required fields with '*', indicates optional parameters, and describes the file upload shape. This goes far beyond the schema's generic descriptions and is essential for correct operation invocation.

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 'IvedaAI API — FaceTarget operations' and enumerates all operations (search/create/delete/update face targets and keys, export, list unqualified), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ivedaai_face. However, it lacks a concise high-level summary of what a 'FaceTarget' is, relying on the endpoint list to convey purpose.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name 'FaceTarget operations' and the detailed endpoint list, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, nor any exclusions. It does provide a pointer to ivedaai_get_schema for body fields, which is a helpful form of guidance for request construction.

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