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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces those with 'Idempotent' and 'Safe to retry.' It adds valuable context beyond annotations by revealing the Stripe webhook automation and the prerequisite condition ('payment completed but brand inactive'), giving the agent a clearer mental model of the tool's role.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the most important behavioral fact (idempotent), the second states the condition and retry safety. There is no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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 single-parameter action with no output schema, this description provides sufficient context: what triggers it, when to call manually, and that retries are safe. It could mention the result of activation (e.g., brand becomes active) but that is reasonably implied by the name and trigger condition.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter 'brand' as a 'Brand slug' with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable since the schema is fully self-explanatory for this simple case.

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 title and description clearly define the action: activating a brand. The phrase 'call it only if payment completed but the brand is still inactive' distinguishes this from sibling tools like brand_create or brand_get by specifying the exact state transition. No ambiguity about what resource is affected.

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 gives explicit conditions for use: only when payment has completed but the brand remains inactive. It also states the tool is normally fired automatically by the Stripe webhook, which tells the agent this is an exceptional manual call. The retry safety note provides additional guidance without needing inference.

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