Create a brand for a product

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

Discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: this consumes a plan brand slot, can fail with a brand-limit error, results in the video direction drafting asynchronously, and does not spend credits. These are not inferable from `readOnlyHint: false`, `destructiveHint: false`, or the schema, and they materially affect agent decisions.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage conditions, user consent, plan-limit behavior, alternatives, async follow-up, and credit disclosure. Front-loaded with the core action before routing to alternatives.

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?

Covers the full call context: when to use it, prerequisites, side effects, failure mode, fallback tools, and follow-up polling behavior. With no output schema, it still provides enough for an agent to invoke correctly and handle the outcome.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining that `name` overrides the storefront-detected name and that brand attributes are drafted from the storefront scrape, slightly enriching the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: creates a new brand from an identity detected on a product waiting on `brand_decision_required`, and attaches the product to it. Clearly distinguishes this from the sibling `set_product_brand`, which re-points an existing 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?

Explicitly says when to use: when the product belongs to a company the account has no brand for, typically with a new store. Names alternatives and conditions: `set_product_brand`, optionally with `replace_identity: true`, or upgrade when the plan's brand limit is reached. Also instructs to ask the user before calling.

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