delete_face_images

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key behavioral consequence: deleting all images for a name effectively removes the person. This goes beyond the input schema and helps the agent understand the tool's impact. It does not mention reversibility or return values, but the core destructive behavior is clear.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, the second explains a meaningful behavioral nuance. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool's simple scope (two required parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core action and the important edge case of deleting all images. It does not explain error handling or return values, but the output schema likely covers that, and the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'name' and 'image_ids'. The tool description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The overall behavior context is helpful but not tied to individual parameters.

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 action ('Delete'), the resource ('one or more stored face images'), and the target ('for a person'). The second sentence adds a crucial clarification about the effect of deleting all images, which distinguishes it from simply managing images and aligns with related face tools like rename_face and reprocess_face.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool—whenever you need to delete face images. It also provides a usage guideline by noting that deleting all images for a name effectively removes the person, suggesting an alternative approach to person removal. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, which would push it to a 5.

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