pws_assign_worker_brand

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail: omitting brandId clears the assignment, and there is a preview mode. However, it does not clarify what 'preview' actually returns or how the 'confirmed' parameter fits in, so the behavioral picture remains incomplete.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose with 'PREVIEW OR ASSIGN' and packs the most important usage detail about clearing into a short semicolon clause. There is no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with a confirmation parameter, no output schema, and zero schema-level parameter descriptions, the definition is not complete. It leaves the preview/confirm workflow, return behavior, and required preconditions largely implicit, so an agent may not know whether to provide 'confirmed' or what the response tells it.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does clarify brandId's behavior ('omit brandId to clear it') and contractId is inferable, but it gives no semantics for 'preview' or 'confirmed', which are crucial for actually invoking the tool safely.

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?

States a specific action ('assign') on a specific resource ('active player-company contract') with a clear target ('a brand'), and also conveys the clearing mode. It is distinct from sibling tools like set_contract_gimmick or set_contract_persona because it names the brand assignment purpose directly.

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 when to use the tool: assigning or clearing a brand on an active player-company contract. It also communicates an important constraint ('active contract') and the clearing behavior, but it never names alternatives or says when not to use it, leaving sibling differentiation to the agent.

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