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

With all three annotation hints false, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful context: the operation produces a revised brand_ref with the same reference but a new underlying version, exactly like a versioned house_ref, and it can lock and suppress items. It also explicitly scopes out accounts and reviewer states, which helps the agent understand current limitations.

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 information-dense without fluff, and front-loads the core behavior before adding limitation context. Each clause earns its place: what is recorded, what is produced, and what is not yet included.

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 100% schema coverage, the presence of an output schema, and the annotations, the description completes the picture by explaining the versioning behavior, the manual nature, and the exclusion of approval states. An agent has enough context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds framing around the decision-recording intent, but does not materially expand on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Records') and resource ('brand_guideline_specify candidate'), and details the three concrete outcomes: chosen candidate, locked colours, and suppressed claims. It also distinguishes the tool's output from the input-producing sibling, brand_guideline_specify, by explaining this records the decision rather than generating candidates.

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 clearly situates the tool as a manual decision-recording step following brand_guideline_specify, and explicitly excludes the full approval workflow ('No accounts or reviewer states yet'). It does not name a specific alternative tool for approvals or other related workflows, so it stops short of a fully explicit when-to-use versus alternatives statement.

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