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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that prior values are discarded, that aliases/domains lists replace in full, that ignored:true detaches the brand from every segment, and that the own brand cannot be ignored. These side effects and constraints are exactly what the destructiveHint alone would not convey.

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?

Front-loads the destructive 'previous values are not kept' warning, then proceeds logically through fields and kind derivation. It is dense but every sentence carries information; only minor overlap with schema descriptions makes it feel slightly long.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the overwrite contract, list-replacement semantics, and all the derived-state/kind rules an agent needs. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real value by explaining that brand kind is derived from context rather than written on the brand, and how ignored maps to pool/competitor/own-brand states. Some replacement semantics duplicate the schema text, capping it below a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (update a brand) plus the exact mutable fields (display name, aliases, domains, ignored state), and the first sentence flags the overwrite behavior. An agent can immediately distinguish this from create-brand-tool and from the list-/get-brand 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?

Gives clear guidance on partial updates ('send only the fields to change') and routes kind changes to alternatives (attach to a segment, or designate via update-project's brand_id). It lacks an explicit 'do not use this to create a brand' exclusion, but the alternatives for the tricky case are named.

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