create_brandCreates a new, empty brand (a separate business with its own connected social accounts) on the PostWire account and returns its id. The plan limits the number of brands; at the limit nothing is created and the response names the plan that includes more brands, its monthly price and a checkout link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Brand name, e.g. the client's business name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the brand is created empty, the id is returned, and at the plan limit nothing is created and the response redirects the user to an upgrade path with plan name, price, and checkout link. This is valuable side-effect and failure-mode context.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause earns its place—defining brand, noting the return value, and explaining the plan-limit behavior. No repetition or 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?
The tool is simple (one required parameter), the schema documents the parameter fully, and the description covers the return value plus the important edge case at the plan limit. An agent has enough to call it correctly without an output schema.
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 input schema already fully documents the single 'name' parameter with a clear example, so the description adds little parameter-specific meaning. Per the baseline, 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is 100%.
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 states a specific verb ('Creates'), a precise resource ('a new, empty brand'), defines what a brand is, and notes the return value. It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling listing or connection tools like list_brands and create_connect_link.
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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate: creating a new separate business entity on the PostWire account. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can route to it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.