block_asset_face

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly mentions creating a 'Blocked Face' tag and excluding the face from future matching, which are meaningful side effects beyond the tool name. It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds a parenthetical with key side effects. Every word earns its place; no redundant information.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main operation and effects, but leaves parameter semantics under-specified and does not mention any prerequisites, return values, or error conditions. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 50% (only 'id' has a generic description). The description does not clarify what 'id' refers to (asset vs. face crop) or what 'face_id' means. The phrase 'detected face crop' hints at the relationship, but the description fails to compensate for the undocumented 'face_id' parameter, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 'Block' on a specific resource ('detected face crop on an asset') and distinguishes from siblings by elaborating the effects: creates a 'Blocked Face' tag and excludes from future matching. This is specific and not a tautology, earning full marks.

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 when to use the tool (blocking a detected face crop) and the behavioral effect (excludes from future matching), but does not explicitly contrast it with similar tools like ignore_asset_face_toggle or tag_asset_face. No exclusions or alternative guidance is given, so it remains at an implied-usage level.

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