Remove a brand variation

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: permanent deletion, no archive, comments lost, gap in sequence, confirm requirement, and auth scope. This far exceeds the minimum needed for safe use.

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 concise yet information-dense, with a clear opening and each sentence serving a distinct purpose (consequences, required confirm, ordering side effect, alternative). No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (permanent delete, side effects, alternatives), the description is complete: it covers effects on client view, comments, sequence gaps, required confirm, auth scope, and related tools. No output schema or annotations, so this fills all gaps.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context around the confirm parameter (permanence) but does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Permanently DELETE one brand proposal from a project,' clearly stating the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_brand_variation and reorder_brand_variations, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 guidance is provided: when to use update_brand_variation instead, when to follow with reorder_brand_variations, and when to read list_client_comments first. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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