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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the merge-not-replace semantics, that a normal re-scan can never remove findings, that forceFresh discards prior findings, and that an already-approved guide is not touched by this call. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs and cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then numbers the two use cases in order of likely need. Some clauses (e.g. restating merge behavior in both the prose and the schema) are redundant, but every sentence carries operational weight.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema and three fully documented parameters; the description covers prerequisites, defaults, destructive-ish side effects, and the downstream call needed to propagate changes. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds mode-dependent meaning for brandId (recovery vs refresh) and stresses the safe default for forceFresh, plus a bare-domain hint for websiteUrl. It largely parallels the schema text, so it does not fully escape the baseline.

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 ('Re-runs the website scan') and immediately distinguishes the two modes from sibling operations like create_brand and generate_brand_guide. An agent can tell what this does and when it differs from a first-time ingest without opening 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?

Explicitly enumerates two use cases with the prerequisite brand statuses ('failed' for recovery, 'active' for refresh), states when to omit websiteUrl, warns that most retries should NOT set forceFresh, and names the follow-up action (generate_brand_guide) when an approved guide must be updated. This is close to a complete routing spec.

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