brand_brandcode_connect

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains two modes, return values (brand name, slug, sync token, connection details), and prerequisites for save mode. It lacks mention of potential side effects but is otherwise transparent.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by mode details and usage triggers. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and structured.

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 specifies return values. It covers both modes, prerequisites, and parameter conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining that url is required for pull mode and providing examples, and clarifying share_token usage for protected brands, adding meaningful value.

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 connects a local .brand/ to Brandcode Studio with two distinct modes (pull and save), and specifies the exact resources involved. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the 'connect' action to Brandcode Studio.

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?

Explicit usage triggers are provided ('connect to Brandcode', 'pull from Studio', 'save brand to Studio', 'upload my brand'), and it notes that 'save' mode requires prior authentication via a specific sibling tool, offering clear when-to-use guidance.

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