Update a brand variation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses overwriting, live client visibility, null-clearing semantics, kit repointing validation, and the publishing-like nature. This goes well beyond what the schema alone would convey.

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 dense but every sentence adds meaningful information, from overwrite behavior to null handling to the alternative tool. It is front-loaded with the core action and doesn't waste words, though it is longer than a minimal description.

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?

For a mutation tool with complex side effects, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, permissions, and behavioral consequences (live publishing, kit validation). There is no output schema, so return values are not explained, but that is less critical given the rich behavioral 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?

The schema already documents all parameters at 100% coverage with descriptions, including null-to-clear behavior. The description adds useful patch semantics ('Send only the fields that move') and explains the kitSlug behavior beyond the schema's basic description, so it adds value over the structured data.

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 tool edits an existing brand proposal in place, and distinguishes it from adding a new direction by explicitly naming add_brand_variation as the alternative. It also highlights the overwrite/publishing nature, which distinguishes it from other brand variation operations like reorder or remove.

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 specifies when to use the tool: to act on client feedback from list_client_comments without making the client re-review a whole new set. It also explicitly says to use add_brand_variation instead when the old one should stay on the board, and notes the required kits:write scope.

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