ignore_asset_face_toggle

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the toggle semantics (state flip), the per-asset scope, and contrasts with global blocking, which helps predict side effects. It does not mention return values or errors, but for a simple toggle this is reasonably 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every phrase earns its place. It avoids repetition and is immediately scannable.

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 toggle operation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, use case, and parameter semantics. It lacks details about idempotency or error behavior, but these are less critical for a focused toggle tool, especially given its brevity.

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 only 50% and the 'id' description is generic ('ID of the resource'). The description adds meaning by clarifying that the tool operates 'per-asset' (so id refers to the asset) and on a 'detected face id' (so face_id is the detected face). This compensates for the schema's lack of specificity.

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 a specific action: 'Toggle the per-asset "ignore" state on a detected face id.' It identifies the resource (per-asset face), the verb (toggle), and distinguishes itself from global blocking ('without blocking the face globally'), which sets it apart from sibling tools like block_asset_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 provides a clear use case: 'Useful for hiding low-confidence detections without blocking the face globally.' This implies when to use the tool (per-asset, non-global) and hints at an alternative (blocking globally), though it does not explicitly name siblings or state when not to use it.

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