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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'Account-wide impact' adds useful context about the scope of the mutation. However, it does not elaborate on consequences, reversibility, or permission requirements, which would be valuable given the destructive hint. It adds some value beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.

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 sentence with no fluff, and the key point ('Account-wide impact') is front-loaded. It is concise and well-structured, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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 tool has a nested patch object with three properties, a dry_run flag, and an expected_revision parameter, plus no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the patch affects, how dry_run works, or what expected_revision is for. An agent cannot confidently construct a correct call without additional documentation.

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%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (patch, dry_run, expected_revision). The schema only gives types and patterns, with no semantic guidance. The agent is left to guess what 'patch' should contain, what 'dry_run' does, and what 'expected_revision' is for. This is a severe 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?

The description does not explicitly say 'update brand' but the title does, and the description's 'Account-wide impact' and 'global customisation' convey the resource and scope. It also differentiates from update_catalogue, so the purpose is clear enough for an agent to identify what this tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('global customisation') and when to prefer an alternative ('prefer update_catalogue for a single PDF'). This is clear, actionable guidance that helps the agent select the right tool.

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