update_marketing_brandUpdate fields on one owned brand identity. No delete is exposed over MCP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| voice | No | ||
| brand_id | Yes | Full UUID from the matching list tool. | |
| guidelines | No | ||
| value_proposition | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds one behavioral note ('No delete is exposed') which is helpful, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or behavior of partial updates. Adequate but not rich.
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 sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action. Could be considered too terse but is effective for its core message.
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?
Missing key context for a mutation tool: what happens to unspecified fields, idempotency, return value (though output schema exists). The description is insufficient for an agent to understand full behavior.
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 coverage is only 20% (1 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter information, leaving agents to guess meanings beyond the schema. For a tool with 5 parameters, this is insufficient.
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?
Clearly states 'Update fields on one owned brand identity' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from creation by specifying 'owned' and explicitly notes no delete is exposed, differentiating from potential deletion tools.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_marketing_brand or get_marketing_brand. The only guideline is a negative statement about delete, but no positive usage context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.