Update tracked brand

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

Annotations already carry the idempotent and non-destructive profile. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what it does NOT destroy ('without replacing prompts or history') and by revealing the cron behavior ('refresh_frequency='manual' pauses cron scans but keeps manual refresh'), which is behavioral nuance not present in the annotations or schema. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the purpose and scope are front-loaded first, followed by a single illustrative example that demonstrates the non-obvious cron-pause behavior. Every sentence earns its place and nothing extraneous is present.

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 mutation tool this is well covered: the output schema exists so return values need not be described, annotations carry the idempotent/destructive profile, and the openWorldHint/readOnlyHint are set. The description adds the key behavioral caveats (no prompt/history loss, cron pause). Minor gaps remain—there is no explicit note about partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are preserved) and no error-case guidance—but these are modest against the rich schema.

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%, so every one of the 8 parameters is individually documented and the baseline is 3. The example (brand_id='acme', competitors=['rival.com'], refresh_frequency='manual') adds a small amount of combinational usage context tying parameters to behavior, but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. The description itself contains no parameter syntax details.

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?

The description states a specific verb-plus-resource ('Change tracked-brand metadata') and clarifies scope by explicitly excluding what it does not touch ('without replacing prompts or history'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like set_prompts (prompts) and refresh_brand (data refresh), and from track_brand (creation), which share the brand domain.

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?

The description implies the tool is for metadata updates by contrasting with prompt/history replacement, but it never explicitly names siblings or states when-not-to-use it (e.g., 'to fetch fresh data use refresh_brand'). The example hints at the refresh-frequency behavior but leaves the selection logic to the agent's inference rather than stating it.

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