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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, giving the safety profile. The description adds only a cross-tool note rather than behavior of this call itself (e.g. side effects on scans/ingestion), so the added value beyond structured data is modest.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a useful routing caveat. Nothing redundant, though the second sentence leans toward justifying a sibling rather than this tool.

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 two-parameter rename with full annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, key scope boundary, and the sibling to use instead. Return-value behavior is not described, but no output schema exists and the annotation set is adequate.

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?

Both parameters (brandId, name) are fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Renames a brand') and immediately bounds the scope by contrasting it with the sibling retry_brand_ingest for websiteUrl correction. An agent can tell exactly what this tool mutates without inspecting the schema.

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 explicit negative routing: websiteUrl correction 'lives on retry_brand_ingest instead,' naming the alternative and giving a rationale. It lacks broader when-to-use guidance (e.g. prerequisites for renaming), but the key exclusion is clear.

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