Attach a product to an existing brand

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is destructive, but the description goes much further by explaining that the default leaves the brand identity untouched, while `replace_identity: true` rewrites a brand identity shared by other products. It also discloses the post-condition that video direction starts drafting afterward and confirms the operation does not spend credits, which is valuable beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Every paragraph earns its place: the core action, the confirmation requirement, the destructive `replace_identity` caveat, the post-call polling step, and the credit note. The content is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and the longer sections provide necessary safety context rather than filler.

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, the description still provides a complete picture of prerequisites, side effects, post-call behavior, and how to verify progress by polling `get_product`. It is sufficient for an agent to know when to call, what to pass, what consequences to expect, and how to follow up.

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%, so the baseline is a 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for `replace_identity` by explaining it is the 're-point my brand at a different company' move and by emphasizing that it affects every product on the brand. The descriptions of `product_id` and `brand_id` are otherwise consistent with the schema and do not require much additional explanation.

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 action with a precise subject: attaching a product waiting on `brand_decision_required` to an existing brand. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like `create_brand` and `update_video_direction` by focusing on the brand assignment step and the required product state.

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 clear context by telling the agent to use `list_brands` to see existing brands and warns to act only after explicit user confirmation that the product belongs to the brand. It does not explicitly name an alternative for cases where the brand does not exist, such as `create_brand`, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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