Clarify brand values

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

The description discloses that the tool modifies state (returns updated identity) and supports natural language input, adding value beyond the annotations which only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. No redundant information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function and return (updated identity, count). It lacks explicit mention of error handling or prerequisites beyond 'after brand_compile', but overall it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter meaning by explaining the ID's source (needs-clarification.yaml) and detailing valid answer formats (hex color, role names, natural language), which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 resolves ambiguous brand values interactively, specifies it is used after brand_compile, and lists the types of items needing confirmation. It distinguishes itself from any potential siblings by detailing its specific role.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (after brand_compile when there are ambiguous values) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The guidance is sufficient but lacks exclusions.

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