Create Face

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

Annotations provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=false (write operation), openWorldHint=true (may accept unspecified parameters), idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds minimal context beyond this, only listing face types without detailing creation behavior (e.g., response format, error conditions, or side effects). No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description doesn't enrich behavioral understanding significantly.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create a visual face for a template'), followed by a concise list of types. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though the type list could be integrated more smoothly. The structure is efficient, but the lack of usage context slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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 a mutation tool (readOnlyHint=false) with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the what (create face) and types, but lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. The annotations help, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the absence of output schema or provide comprehensive context for safe use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (template_id, display_url, type, platform). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond listing the 'type' enum values, which are already in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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 ('Create a visual face for a template') and resource ('face'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_update_face' (update) and 'dual_delete_face' (delete) by specifying creation, but doesn't differentiate from 'dual_create_template' or 'dual_create_template_variation' which create related resources. The list of types adds specificity but doesn't fully address sibling overlap.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing template), constraints, or compare to siblings like 'dual_update_face' or 'dual_get_template_faces'. It lists face types but doesn't explain when to choose one type over another, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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