ignore_asset_unidentified_faces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the net effect ('hide') without disclosing whether the hide is reversible, whether it overrides per-face ignore settings, or any side effects or permissions. The sibling tool ignore_asset_face_toggle suggests a toggle mechanism, but this description does not clarify the relationship.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and object, with no filler. Every word contributes to clarity.

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?

While succinct, the description lacks information about return values, reversibility, or side effects for a mutating action. Given no annotations or output schema, a bit more context would be needed for full clarity, though the operation is straightforward.

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 schema describes 'id' generically as 'ID of the resource', but the description's 'on an asset' clarifies that the parameter is the asset ID, adding meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3; the asset context justifies a 4.

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 ('Hide'), the target ('all unidentified face crops'), and the scope ('on an asset'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ignore_asset_face_toggle, which operates on a single face, by specifying 'all unidentified' rather than a single 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 implies the use case (hiding all unmatched faces) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ignore_asset_face_toggle, tag_asset_face, or block_asset_face. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative scenarios.

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