create_face_folder

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 discloses a prerequisite (face recognition must be enabled) and a limitation (multipart upload not exposed by this MCP server). But it does not mention behaviors such as idempotency (what happens if the folder already exists) or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and then adds two concise, essential facts (prerequisite and post-creation workflow). Every sentence earns 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?

For a simple single-parameter create operation, the description covers the purpose, an important operational prerequisite, and the follow-up process for adding images. An output schema exists, so return values are not the description's responsibility. Minor omissions like error handling prevent a perfect score.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'name' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds the constraint that the folder is for a 'new person' and explains the purpose of the folder (to hold training images added later), which provides useful semantic context beyond the schema.

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 tool's action: 'Create a face folder for a new person.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the context about enabling face recognition and uploading training images distinguishes it from sibling face tools such as rename_face and delete_face_images.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: it requires Frigate face recognition to be enabled, and it clarifies that training images are uploaded separately via Frigate's UI, implying this tool does not handle that. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or give a direct when-not-to-use statement.

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