face_swap_video_individual

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the prerequisite ('detect_faces first') but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, output format, or error handling. For a video processing tool with no annotations, 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?

The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every sentence earning its place by adding critical context.

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 complexity of video face-swapping, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and workflow but misses behavioral traits (e.g., destructive nature, processing time), error cases, and output details. However, it does provide key usage guidance, raising it above minimal viability.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'face IDs from detect_faces result' for 'original_face', but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 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 clearly states the specific action ('swap specific faces in a video') and resource ('video'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'face_swap_photo' (photos) and 'face_swap_video' (likely batch processing). It explicitly mentions using 'detect_faces first to get face IDs', which adds precision about the required workflow.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use detect_faces first to get face IDs') and implies alternatives by specifying 'specific faces' (vs. batch processing in 'face_swap_video'). It clearly outlines the prerequisite step, helping the agent understand the proper sequence.

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