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

Adds substantive behavioral context beyond annotations: what is *not* destroyed (campaigns, connections, billing history all stay intact), that the action is not reversible from this tool, and that restoration happens in the Rebbel dashboard. This nuances the destructiveHint=true annotation (visibility removed, data retained), which the annotation alone cannot 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core effect, then scope of damage, then reversibility. No filler; each sentence carries a distinct, decision-relevant fact.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what changes, what survives, and that undoing requires the dashboard. No gaps remain for correct invocation.

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 100% and the brandId description already explains provenance (from list_brands), the hide-not-delete semantics, and the restore path. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and effect ('Hides a brand from list_brands') plus the resource, and immediately distinguishes itself from a hard delete. An agent can tell exactly what happens to the brand without opening the schema, and the reference to list_brands ties it to the sibling that surfaces the change.

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 selection context — 'a brand the user is done with, or an accidental duplicate' — and clarifies it is not a delete. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or exclusion (there is no unarchive sibling), so routing is inferred from the effect rather than from an explicit alternative.

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