brand_audit_drift

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

The description discloses key behaviors: scoring, statistics, pattern detection, and writing a drift report to a specific file path (.brand/drift-report.md). Since annotations are absent, this provides adequate behavioral context for an agent.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the action and packs essential information without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers input format, constraints, output (drift report), and usage context. Without an output schema, it adequately explains what the tool produces.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value beyond the schema by including constraints (max 20 items) and an example for the 'items' parameter. The description also implicitly explains the 'threshold' parameter's role.

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 tool performs a batch audit of multiple content items to detect systematic brand drift. It specifies scoring each item, computing corpus-level statistics, identifying recurring patterns, and writing a report. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'brand_audit' which likely audit single items.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use when reviewing a content corpus, auditing a website, or checking whether brand identity is being applied consistently across multiple pieces.' It does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear and helpful.

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