reset_tag_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 communicates destructiveness ('clear face-tagging state') and an async side-effect ('re-enqueue Rekognition indexing'), but omits details about reversibility, permissions, or what happens to existing indexing jobs.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence efficiently captures both the primary action and the reindexing side-effect. There is no filler or repetition.

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 operation is simple (one parameter) and the description states the core behavior. However, the ambiguous 'id' and lack of output/return behavior leave gaps. No annotations or output schema exist, so the description should clarify more, but it is adequate for a basic mutation tool.

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 has 100% coverage with a description for 'id' ('ID of the resource'), but this is generic and unhelpful. The tool description adds no clarification about what resource the id refers to (e.g., tag id, face id). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, but the description does not enrich the parameter's meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('clear') and names the exact resource ('face-tagging state on a person tag') plus the subsequent action ('re-enqueue Rekognition indexing'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_tag_face_membership or remove_tag_face_membership by describing a reset-and-reindex operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions that would warrant a reset. The description simply states the action without context.

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