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

Goes well past the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by disclosing the actual archive consequences: the brand leaves the active list, connected accounts stay connected, and scheduled posts still publish. It also explains the two-call preview/confirm handshake and what the preview counts, which is the kind of side-effect detail an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Organized action-by-action and front-loaded with the verb set. The phrase "Pass confirm=true only after the user agrees" is repeated verbatim for create and update, and the archive paragraph could be tightened, but no sentence is filler.

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 three-action, eight-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, per-action field requirements, the confirm workflow, and the post-archive state. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to explain results to a user.

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%, and the description still maps parameters to the action that consumes them (create needs name and workspace_id; update needs brand_id plus the editable fields; archive needs preview_id). This mostly mirrors the schema's conditional notes rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so it is a slight enhancement rather than a full complement.

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?

Opens with a specific verb set and resource: "Create, update, or archive a brand." Each of the three actions is then expanded with its own required fields, so an agent can distinguish the mutation tool from list_brands 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 gates each action: "admin only" for all three, action=archive must be previewed then confirmed, and workspace_id should come from whoami "when the key is not already scoped." The confirm rule is stated per action, leaving no inference needed about sequencing.

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