brand_write

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains behavior: loads brand context, returns a structured brief, does not generate content, and specifies post-processing step. It also notes adaptation based on content_type.

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?

Description is four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is informative without being overly verbose, though it could tighten the opening contradiction.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value ('structured creation brief with all brand layers') and usage context. It covers all parameters and provides sufficient guidance for the tool's role among many siblings.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about content_type determining brand layers but does not detail parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 loads brand context and provides a creation brief, distinguishing it from siblings like brand_compile or brand_preflight. However, the opening phrase 'Generate on-brand content' is slightly misleading since it later clarifies it does not generate content itself.

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 lists use cases (e.g., 'generate on-brand content', 'load brand context for writing') and recommends running brand_preflight afterward. Does not directly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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