Share a brand project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses read-only page behavior, open access and password need, idempotent re-call, destructive rotate side-effect, and the requirement for kits:write scope. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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?

While dense, every sentence earns its place: purpose, behavior, security, idempotency, precondition, and scope. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the core action, with no filler or redundant content.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers what is needed: the return value (URL), preconditions (add variations), side effects (rotate breaks links), security advice, and authorization scope. It is complete for a tool with this complexity.

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 each parameter already has a clear description (projectId, rotate, password). The description adds behavioral context (e.g., rotate permanently breaks the old link) but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Publish a project to a client and return the full /p/<token> URL', which is a specific verb+resource+output. It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like get_brand_project (retrieve) and update_brand_share (modify sharing) by framing it as the publishing action.

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?

It provides clear context: call to share with a client, idempotent on repeat, rotate for leaked links. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as revoke_brand_share or update_brand_share, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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