tag_asset_face

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the operation indexes the face into Rekognition and that future uploads will automatically run face matching against this person, which are important side effects. It also clarifies that face_id comes from get_asset_face_taggings. It does not mention return values or error conditions, but the core side effects are well communicated.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a concise three-step workflow and a one-line note about future behavior. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the parameter complexity (4 params, 2 required) and absence of annotations or output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the exact workflow, the source of face_id, the tag_id/name alternatives, and the long-term impact of indexing. This is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already describes all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between parameters: face_id is obtained via get_asset_face_taggings, and tag_id/name are alternatives for associating the person tag. This helps the agent understand the parameter roles beyond their terse schema descriptions.

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 function: 'Manually tag a detected face crop on an image asset and index it into Rekognition for org-wide face matching.' This is a specific verb+resource+outcome that distinguishes it from sibling tools like tag_video_face or reset_tag_face. The workflow further specifies the exact purpose.

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 detailed workflow for the intended use case ('upload a headshot for a person tag'), referencing upload_file and get_asset_face_taggings as prerequisite steps. It clearly conveys when to use this tool within a broader process, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like tag_video_face or set_tag_face_membership.

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