update_brand

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explicitly noting that only included fields are changed, implying omitted fields remain untouched. This is valuable for a partial-update tool. The annotations (idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false) already convey safety, and the description does not contradict them.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and a key usage rule. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary detail or repetition of schema content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, one nested object) and rich schema descriptions, the description covers the core requirement of what the tool does. It omits return value details, but since there is no output schema, that is not fully compensated. Overall, it is adequate for a CRUD update tool with good annotations and 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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 7 properties (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the general instruction to include only changed fields, which relates to parameter usage as a group, but it does not add deeper meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('a brand'), and lists the specific fields that can be modified (name, slug, parent, description, image). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_brand, delete_brand, or get_brand.

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 provides a useful usage hint ('Only include fields you want to change') indicating partial-update semantics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_brand for new brands). The context is implied by the tool name and sibling list, not explicitly articulated.

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