describe_face

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation but never says what 'metadata' contains, whether a Pro license is actually required to call it, or how it behaves if the face name is unknown; the embedded 'Requires Kiln Pro' block is ambiguous in a tool-naming context and could mislead an agent about access. No return shape or error behavior is disclosed.

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 useful content is a single sentence; the following three lines are marketing/pricing noise irrelevant to invoking the tool, consuming roughly half the text. Front-loading is fine, but a large fraction of the description does not earn its place.

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?

Two required params with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description never explains the parameters, the source of valid face names, or what metadata is returned. For a lookup tool whose only inputs are untyped strings, this is materially incomplete.

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 0% — both required parameters (face_name, product_type) are bare strings with no titles beyond the raw names. The description adds nothing: no example values, no indication of whether face_name must come from list_decoratable_faces, no note that product_type should match list_product_types. Nearly all semantic load is missing.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource — 'Return metadata for a single semantic face on a product' — which unambiguously tells an agent this is a read of one face's metadata. It does not differentiate from close siblings like get_product_faces, list_decoratable_faces, or get_face_emboss_depth, so an agent cannot route confidently between them from the description alone.

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 statement of when to use this versus get_product_faces (plural discovery) or get_face_emboss_depth. The remaining text is a pricing/upsell block about calibration, mid-print edits, and textures — none of which relate to describing a face — so it provides no usable selection guidance.

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