pws_delete_brand

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds that deletion also clears contract/event assignments and uses 'PWS native cleanup behavior.' This is useful behavioral context. It does not mention irreversibility or the confirmation requirement, but annotations already signal destructiveness.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. The central action is front-loaded, and every phrase adds meaningful information about scope and cleanup behavior.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and only minimal annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits how to perform a safe preview versus an actual deletion, what happens if 'confirmed' is absent, and what the caller should expect in response. An agent would be uncertain about the exact invocation flow.

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 indirectly maps 'brand' to brandId and 'PREVIEW' to preview, but it never explains the confirmed parameter, the preview default behavior, or the relationship between preview and confirmed. This leaves a significant semantic gap.

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 states a specific verb ('PREVIEW OR DELETE') and a specific resource ('player-company brand'), and further clarifies that it clears contract/event assignments. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like pws_get_brands, pws_save_brand, and pws_assign_worker_brand.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when you need to preview or delete a brand. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it direct the agent to alternatives such as pws_save_brand for edits or pws_get_brands for reads.

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