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

Annotations already mark the operation as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it produces a revised brand_ref under the same reference as a new version, like a versioned house_ref, and clarifies there are no reviewer or account states. This complements the annotations without contradicting 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?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and includes only high-value details such as versioning and the absence of approval states. It is compact and efficient, though splitting it into two sentences would improve scannability.

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?

With an output schema present and all parameters documented, the description does not need to explain return values or individual inputs.The added versioning behavior and the 'not an approval workflow' caveat give enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Naming an explicit alternative for the approval workflow would make it even more complete.

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 covers all six parameters with descriptions, including the OR relationship between brand_ref and project_id, so the tool description does not need to repeat them. The description does provide a high-leel grouping of the decision effects, but that mapping is already present in the property descriptions. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 identifies the specific verb 'Records' and the precise resource: the brand_guideline_specify candidate, plus the two decision effects (locked colours, suppressed claims). It also differentiates the tool from an approval workflow by saying 'No accounts or reviewer states yet -- this demonstrates decision-making, not a full approval workflow.'

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 positions this as the step after brand_guideline_specify, since the candidate and brand_ref/project_id come from that tool. It also states an explicit exclusion: this is decision-making, not an approval workflow. It does not name a specific sibling to use instead, but the context is clear.

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