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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: partial update semantics ('only include the fields you want to change') and the deprecation of brand color. Annotations already indicate this is a mutating but non-destructive operation, so the description complements rather than repeats them.

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 tight sentences plus a brief parenthetical. The most important usage instruction is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple two-optional-parameter mutation with an output schema and annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: which fields, how to source URLs, and a key limitation. It could add a bit more about response behavior, but the output schema likely covers that.

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% and each parameter already references list_media. The description adds the partial-update rule, which is helpful, but does not materially expand per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the action ('Update branding settings') and the resource, and names the two relevant fields. It does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like update_company or update_theme, but the branding scope is unambiguous enough.

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 practical usage guidance: only include fields to change, use list_media to find URLs, and notes that brand color is no longer configurable (theming is per-report). It lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, but the guidance is specific and actionable.

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