make_face_sample

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses rich output structure (layer names, all on root) and a follow-up rig_face step, but it omits mutation behavior such as whether out_dir is overwritten, required scene state, or permissions.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the dense parenthetical layer list earns its place by defining the exact naming convention. It is long and could be better formatted as a list, but it is not padded.

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?

The description adequately covers the output layer structure for a sample-generation tool, and no output schema means return values need not be explained. However, the required out_dir parameter and side-effect behavior are completely unaddressed, leaving invocation details 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?

There is one required parameter, out_dir, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent receives no guidance on what out_dir means, its format, or whether it must already exist.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Create the procedural sample face: a mascot head drawn as separate layers.' It distinguishes itself from other make_*_sample siblings by specifying a face, and it names the exact layer convention and the follow-up rig_face step.

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 implies usage by saying to 'Run rig_face on it,' which gives a next-step workflow, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like import_psd or make_sample, nor does it provide exclusions.

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