Add a brand variation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the dependency on kit resolution rules, the entitlement requirement for Pro catalog kits, the 'kits:write' OAuth scope, and that variations are hidden from the client until share_brand_project is called. This goes well beyond a basic 'adds a variation' statement.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the operation, the second gives usage guidance and rationale, the third covers prerequisites, visibility, and authorization. It is front-loaded with the core message and contains zero 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?

The description is highly complete for a creation tool: it specifies the action, when to call, prerequisites, visibility semantics, and required scope. The only gap is the lack of any mention of the return value or response structure, which is relevant since there is no output schema. Still, this is a minor omission given the otherwise thorough context.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the kit's resolvability requirement and how the optional fields (brandName, domain, label, notes) function as a coherent proposal set. It also hints at the usage pattern (four or five times with contrasting kits), enriching the meaning of label and notes.

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 states the action ('Attach one brand proposal to a project') and enumerates the components (kit plus optional brand name, domain, label, notes). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_brand_variation, remove_brand_variation, and share_brand_project by focusing on the act of attaching a new variation.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: call it four or five times per project with deliberately contrasting kits, and the rationale for that approach. It also specifies prerequisites (kit must be resolvable, Pro catalog kits need an entitled key) and when variations become visible (only after calling share_brand_project), giving clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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