brand_write

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

Without annotations, the description adequately describes behavior: it loads brand context and returns a creation brief, is read-only, and adapts based on content_type, persona, and stage. It could explicitly state 'read-only' but otherwise is 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?

The description is a single concise paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, provides usage examples, clarifies limitations, and suggests a follow-up. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the six parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the output (structured creation brief) and the adaptation logic. It also references a sibling tool (brand_preflight) for completeness. Some details about exact output structure are missing but not critical.

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?

Parameters are fully covered in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond schema by explaining how content_type determines loaded layers, persona adapts messaging, and stage adapts tone, which adds 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 that the tool loads full brand context and provides a creation brief for generating on-brand content. It explicitly distinguishes itself by noting it does not generate content itself, which differentiates it from sibling tools like brand_audit or brand_preflight.

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 explicit when-to-use examples ('generate on-brand content', 'write something in our brand voice', etc.) and suggests a follow-up action ('Run brand_preflight on output afterward'). It also clarifies what the tool does not do, giving clear alternatives.

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