brand_connect_repo

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the .brand/ directory becomes source of truth, updates are polled every 5 minutes, and authentication is required. It also implicitly reveals that brand_slug may create a new brand. This is comprehensive behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second efficiently adds usage triggers and prerequisites. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool has 5 parameters (all documented in schema) and no output schema. The description covers the main behavior and sync mechanism but lacks explicit mention of return values or success/failure indicators. It is mostly complete for a connect tool, but a brief note on output would make it fully self-contained.

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 adds minimal extra semantics; it mentions the .brand/ directory and sync interval, but these are already stated or implied by the schema. The description does not significantly augment parameter understanding 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 connects a GitHub repo to Brandcode Studio for automatic brand syncing, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like brand_brandcode_connect and brand_repo_status by detailing the sync mechanism and the .brand/ directory as source of truth.

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 triggers are given: 'connect my repo', 'sync from GitHub', etc. It also mandates running brand_brandcode_auth first. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and prerequisites, with alternatives implied by sibling tool names.

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