update_brand

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'update' without disclosing whether the operation is destructive, how null values affect existing fields, or what dry_run does. The presence of a dry_run parameter is not mentioned, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the core action and target, making it easy to scan.

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 this is a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It lacks usage context, parameter semantics, behavioral details, and does not explain the dry_run mechanism, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description only mentions 'name or description,' hinting at brand_name and brand_description. It does not explain brand_id, global_key, or dry_run, and fails to clarify how null values are interpreted (e.g., do nulls preserve existing values or clear them?).

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('existing brand'), and the specific fields ('name or description'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_brand and delete_brands.

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 implies usage (when you need to modify a brand's name or description) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or reference to sibling tools.

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