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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: admin/plan gating, the enforcement effect on editors, and the default-design ordering. It does not state whether the existing kit is fully replaced, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource action front-loaded and every clause carrying semantic or access information — no filler.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers permissions, plan gating, param semantics, and enforcement behavior. It omits replacement/merge semantics and error behavior, but the caller has enough to invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it explains designIds ('saved design ids; the first is the default for new codes') and enforced ('whether editors are limited to them'). Only companyId is left implied, and the maxItems/format constraints remain in the schema.

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 ('Set a company's approved designs... and whether editors are limited to them') and clearly differentiates from the read-only sibling brand_kit_get. It even encodes the semantics of the designIds ordering.

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?

Provides clear access context — 'Company admins; Team and Enterprise plans' — which tells the agent who can invoke it. It stops short of explicitly routing between this and brand_kit_get, but the set/get distinction is implied by the verb and sibling name.

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