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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing that content is replaced in full and verbatim, the id is unchanged, the brief is visible in the dashboard and consumed as context by generate_strategy/generate_campaign, and that no delete tool exists so emptying content is the only retirement path. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and lifecycle consequences, and every sentence carries information. It is somewhat dense and repeats the empty-string retirement rule that the content parameter schema already states, which is a small redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers what an agent needs for a destructive mutation: downstream consumers of the brief, the rename constraint, the retirement pattern, and the absence of a delete alternative. Nothing material 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 cross-parameter meaning the schema only implies: briefId is preserved on update, title is the rename lever, and empty content is a semantic state (retired) rather than mere emptiness. It largely reinforces schema text (the empty-string rule appears in both), so it does not reach 5.

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 resource (revises a research brief) and pins down its scope immediately: 'already saved via ingest_research_brief — replaces its content in place (id unchanged)'. This clearly separates it from ingest_research_brief, generate_knowledge_brief, and get_brand_brief without needing to open any 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 tells the agent when to reach for this tool (revising an existing brief, renaming via title) and gives the non-obvious alternative path for retirement: 'Pass an empty string as content to retire a stale brief... No delete tool exists; emptying content is the retirement path.' When/when-not guidance is complete.

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