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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: it clarifies that only supplied fields are overwritten (partial vs full replace) and explains the idempotency-key retry semantics. The retry-safe claim sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=false, though it is scoped to same-key repeats, so it is a nuance rather than a hard conflict.

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?

Three tightly-scoped sentences: purpose first, then mutation semantics, then retry behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with the field examples being the only mild duplication of schema content.

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 16-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and sparse param docs, the description answers the important 'partial vs full overwrite' question and covers retry semantics. However it omits prerequisites (workspace_id requirement, auth) and leaves the majority of parameters undocumented, so an agent still has gaps.

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 only 19% (just workspace_id is documented) across 16 parameters, so the description carries the compensation burden. It names only three fields and the idempotency_key behavior, leaving brand_id, goals, website, industry, position, business_name, contact_email, colors, body, and query unexplained in both places.

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 (update) and resource (workspace brand profile), and gives concrete example fields (brand_voice, writing_style, target_audience). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling aidelly_get_brand_profile read tool, though the 'such as' phrasing leaves the field scope non-exhaustive.

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 no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names an alternative (e.g., aidelly_get_brand_profile for reading, or other update tools). Usage is only implied by the verb 'update'. The overwrite and retry-safe notes are behavioral, not selection guidance.

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