pws_save_brand

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so some behavioral risk is exposed. The description adds the brandId-based create/update branch, which is useful, but it does not disclose what preview does, what confirmation implies, or what side effects occur on update. It adds moderate value beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds some signal. It is appropriately terse, though the extreme brevity contributes to leaving important contextual information out, so it is strong on conciseness but not perfect.

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?

With no output schema, no required parameters, 0% schema coverage, and a destructive annotation, the description is far from complete. A tool with preview, confirmed, and importance parameters needs explanation of how those flags interact, what preview returns, and what makes an update destructive. The current description does not give an agent enough to call the tool correctly.

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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It only explains 'brandId' indirectly ('Omit brandId to create'), leaving name, preview, confirmed, and importance with no added meaning. This is insufficient for five parameters.

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 names the resource ('player-company brand') and the actions ('PREVIEW OR CREATE/UPDATE'), and adds the key distinction that omitting brandId creates a new brand. It is not a full 5 because the exact meaning of 'PREVIEW' relative to create/update is not explained, but it is still clearly differentiated from obvious sibling tools like pws_get_brands and pws_delete_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 description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pws_delete_brand, pws_get_brands, or pws_assign_worker_brand. It only states a create-vs-update condition, not when this operation is appropriate or what prerequisites/confirmation flow are needed.

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