sapiens_character

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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries nearly the full burden. It discloses destructive behavior (delete is permanent), preconditions (activate requires ≥1 image), side effects (first image becomes main; public visibility generates a slug), and ownership constraints. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it covers 12 sub-actions, preconditions, and integration points. However, the content is a single run-on block with semicolon-separated clauses; grouping the image-management actions helps, but bullet structure would make it more scannable for an agent.

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 complex tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains auth/ownership, public vs draft/private behavior, required image before activation, retrieval of current imageUrls, deletion permanence, and how to use outputs like mainImageUrl downstream. No essential information is missing.

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 already covers 92% of parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds useful action-to-parameter context, such as which parameter applies to which action, but most of this is either restated from the schema or is tool-level workflow context rather than new parameter-level detail.

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 identifies the resource (`influencers` character sheets), what it does (reusable characters with images and system prompts), and enumerates every sub-action. It also distinguishes the tool from image generation tools by explaining how character images are consumed by sapiens_image.

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?

It provides explicit usage rules per sub-action: list_public for the public catalog, get for details, list_mine for own characters, and the ownership/visibility restrictions. It also gives an end-to-end creation flow (create → add_image → set_card → activate → set_visibility) and tells the agent exactly how to use a public character as a reference in sapiens_image.

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