edit_person

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds value by framing the target as a face-recognition group, but it never explains which of the listed actions is destructive or whether effects are reversible (e.g. does renaming overwrite an existing name, does hiding persist). Given the destructive flag, a note on irreversibility would have earned a 4-5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, followed by the enumeration and the alternative. Nothing is wasted and no sentence repeats the schema.

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 5-parameter mutation tool whose parameters are fully documented and which has no output schema, the description covers purpose, the operation set and the one obvious sibling. The remaining gap is behavioral: a destructive mutation tool with no output schema should say what the caller gets back or what gets lost, so it falls just short of complete.

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 every parameter (name, space, action, person, item_id) is already documented in the schema, including the `""` unnamed convention and the include_hidden caveat. The description only echoes the action list, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change one person ... in Synology Photos'), clarifies the domain concept ('a face-recognition group'), and enumerates the concrete operations (rename, hide/unhide, set cover). It also names the sibling merge_people, so an agent can separate 'edit one' from 'combine two' without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to merge_people when the task is combining duplicate groups, which is the main confusion risk in this domain. It stops short of naming the other adjacent operations (listing people via list_photo_collections, deleting a person) as out of scope, so the exclusion set is not fully closed.

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