Delete Face

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

Annotations provide key behavioral hints: destructiveHint=true (deletion), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), readOnlyHint=false (mutation), and openWorldHint=true (handles unknown IDs). The description adds value by specifying 'face definition' as the target, but doesn't elaborate on consequences (e.g., if deletion affects related objects) or auth requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a face definition'), making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema fully documents the single parameter. However, it lacks details on error cases, return values, or side effects, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 one parameter ('face_id') documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as explaining what constitutes a valid face ID or where to obtain it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter.

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 'Delete a face definition' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('face definition'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_delete_file' or 'dual_delete_template' beyond the resource name, missing explicit distinction about what makes a 'face definition' unique in this context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a face ID from 'dual_get_face' or 'dual_list_faces'), exclusions, or comparisons to similar deletion tools like 'dual_delete_file'. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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