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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly but idempotent and non-destructive mutation. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: authentication requirements, partial-update semantics, slug immutability so shared links keep working, and video removal behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds only operationally useful constraints in compact sentences. There is little waste, and the exclusion about logo/background is clearly separated.

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 7-parameter update tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the missing behavioral and usage context an agent needs. It explains authentication, partial updates, slug stability, removal semantics, and what is out of scope.

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 each parameter well. The description still adds useful semantics beyond the schema by explaining partial updates, the relationship between edit_link and slug/edit_key, and the consequences of changing video_url to an empty string.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it changes a branded page's name, description, colour, or video, and ties it to create_branded_link. It also clarifies that the slug stays the same, which distinguishes an update from link creation or deletion.

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?

It gives explicit usage rules: pass only fields to change, supply edit_link or slug plus edit_key, use an empty string to remove video, and change logo/background on the edit page rather than here. These are concrete when-to-use, prerequisite, and exclusion conditions.

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