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

The description states the tool 'Set[s] what promoters should say about you', which is an unambiguous write/mutation of the campaign brief. The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, directly contradicting the mutation the description promises. Annotation Contradiction.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: prerequisite first, then the field contract. Every clause carries a constraint the agent needs, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and unreliable annotations, the description covers credentials and all input constraints but omits update semantics (replace vs merge for links/required_words), reversibility, and what a success response looks like. Adequate but leaving meaningful gaps for a write operation.

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 0%, so the description carries the whole burden, and it does document all three parameters with concrete constraints: say ≤500 chars, required_words ≤8, links ≤4 and https-only. Only 'say' is marked required in the schema but the description doesn't distinguish required from optional, which is the sole gap.

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?

Names a specific action and resource: setting the campaign brief content that promoters should use. The sibling 'network_brief_get' and 'network_briefs' make the get/set distinction obvious from the name, so an agent can place it without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings.

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?

Gives prerequisites ('Requires a JWT and a live membership'), which is useful context for when the call will succeed. However, it never says when to use this over alternatives, nor what conditions make editing inappropriate (e.g. brief locked, campaign paused). Usage is implied by the prerequisite statement rather than spelled out.

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