Uwear

Revise Brief

update_brief

Replace the visible Uwear BriefProposal with a complete canonical command list. Edit commands[].input directly using the MCP-safe GenerationIntent fields and preserve every unchanged field and durable source. This is replacement state, not a partial diff. For video_garment_view_not_attached warnings, follow the capacity-aware remediation: never mix reference_attachments with img_ref_urls or append recommendations beyond remaining capacity. Include updated creative_context for photoshoot rewrites and explain the changed art direction. Webhook callback configuration is API-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`commands`	Yes	Canonical generation commands. Each command contains the MCP-safe GenerationIntent fields and a durable source reference. Write each input.prompt as a compact positive scene description (setting, lighting, mood, camera, pose — for video, motion and camera movement); without art_direction_id the prompt is the entire creative direction, so give it the full scene. The attached garment/avatar/reference images carry product appearance, so never pad prompts with restated garment construction details, product-fidelity warnings, or negative 'do not' instruction blocks; styling intent (fit, tuck, drape) is fine. For video commands, attach available full back or side garment assets that the camera may reveal through input.reference_attachments when capacity permits. Do not combine reference_attachments with img_ref_urls; uploaded garment assets are not attached automatically. Webhook callback configuration is API-only.
`creative_context`	No	Required for photoshoot proposals and brief rewrites. Summarize the shoot-level creative approach that guided garment combos, avatars, prompts, and pipeline steps. By default prefer one cohesive art direction across the photoshoot, e.g. 'urban summer editorial', 'standard grey e-commerce', or 'sporty studio catalog'. Per-look prompts may differ for garment details, pose, framing, or avatar, but should feel part of the same shoot unless the user explicitly asks for multiple art directions, split concepts, A/B routes, or varied campaign directions. The assistant should explain this art direction to the user after proposing the brief and ask if they want changes.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With all annotations set to false, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains the replacement semantics ('This is replacement state, not a partial diff') and the preservation requirement ('preserve every unchanged field and durable source'). It also discloses that webhook callback configuration is API-only, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. A slight gap is that it does not mention whether the update takes effect immediately or requires confirmation, though the schema's 'without immediate execution' partially covers this.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core behavior, then moves to specific remediation guidance. Every sentence contributes new information: replacement semantics, field preservation, warning handling, creative_context, and the API-only webhook limitation. It is dense but not bloated, though the 'replacement state' phrase partially repeats the opening clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich input schema and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the most important operational details: replacement semantics, required preservation, video warning handling, creative_context usage, and API-only restrictions. It does not explain the relationship to sibling tools like confirm_brief or state what happens after update, but the schema's 'without immediate execution' context and the mention of a 'visible' proposal provide reasonable completeness for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical guidance for the commands parameter by telling the agent to edit commands[].input directly and to follow capacity-aware remediation for reference_attachments. It also correctly highlights creative_context as required for photoshoot rewrites, adding meaning beyond the raw parameter definitions. It could have added more about the commands array structure, but it sufficiently supplements the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Replace the visible Uwear BriefProposal with a complete canonical command list.' It clarifies the operation is a full replacement ('replacement state, not a partial diff'), which distinguishes it from partial-edit tools. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling tool or differentiate itself from propose_brief/confirm_brief, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides conditional guidance ('For video_garment_view_not_attached warnings...', 'Include updated creative_context for photoshoot rewrites'), which implies some use cases. It does not explicitly state when to use update_brief versus alternatives like propose_brief or confirm_brief, nor does it mention prerequisites such as an existing visible brief being required. The usage context is inferable but not explicit.

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

All Uwear tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct resources and have detailed descriptions, but several closely related families exist: create_credit_checkout_session vs mcp_create_credit_checkout_session, the propose_brief/confirm_brief/update_brief lifecycle, and the many avatar/upload entry points. An agent must read long caveats carefully to avoid selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tool names follow a predictable snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, propose_*). The mcp_* prefix group and varied creation verbs (create/upload/save/add/generate) are minor deviations, though mcp_create_credit_checkout_session duplicating create_credit_checkout_session adds some confusion.

Tool Count1/5

With 67 tools, this is an extreme mismatch by the rubric's own 50+ threshold, far beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. Many tools are narrow lifecycle steps such as two-phase local uploads, app-only montage internals, and multiple ArtDirection authoring variants, making the agent-facing surface very heavy.

Completeness3/5

The core generation, brief, montage, and QA workflows are covered thoroughly with polling and result retrieval. However, notable lifecycle gaps exist: outfits, locations, avatars, and tags mostly have create/list/get but no update or delete, and delete_template is the only delete tool in the entire set.

Resources

Need Help?