update_branding

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that fields can be partially updated ('any combination'), that null/empty string clears fields, and that 'hideBadge' requires specific plans. However, it doesn't mention mutation effects, permissions needed, or error conditions.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement, behavioral notes, and organized field list. Slightly verbose in repeating schema descriptions, but every sentence serves a purpose. Could be more concise by referencing schema instead of duplicating field details.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what the tool does and how to use parameters. Missing details about response format, error handling, and complete permission requirements prevent a perfect score, but it's substantially complete.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats the field definitions almost verbatim from the schema, adding minimal additional semantic value beyond what's already in structured data.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Update'), target resource ('workspace's whitelabel branding configuration'), and scope ('Set any combination of branding fields'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_branding' tool by being the write counterpart to that read operation.

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 usage when needing to modify branding settings, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'update_workflow' or prerequisites. It mentions a plan requirement for 'hideBadge' but doesn't clarify overall access requirements.

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