agency_branding

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

Annotations flag the whole tool as destructive, but the description decomposes behaviour per action: get is a safe read that never returns secrets or provider keys, update_* are partial merges where only sent fields change, reset clears the login page, and upload copies to the CDN with stated per-kind size/format limits. It also adds the operational caveat "Confirm the brand values with the user before changing a live portal" and the https-only URL rule, none of which are in the 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?

The core block is front-loaded and information-dense, but it is a single semicolon-chained paragraph, and the trailing "Actions: ..." list then restates the same behaviours already described, duplicating several sentences. The tool is genuinely complex, yet roughly a third of the text is 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?

Covers all four actions, their merge vs replace semantics, the prerequisite that assets must be uploaded before being referenced, and what upload_asset returns. With no output schema, it could say slightly more about what get hands back beyond "domain status", but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 already 88%, so the schema carries most of the weight, but the description adds real meaning: font fallback order with a worked example (["Rubik","Almarai"] = Latin vs Arabic), primaryColorHex building the whole palette, mediaSide being logical (start = left in LTR, right in RTL), and the split-layout gradient fallback when mediaUrl is absent. Upload size limits (≤1 MB, ≤256 KB, ≤2 MB) are stated only here, not in the schema.

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 opening sentence gives a concrete verb and resource: "Brand the caller's own whitelabel agency (client portal + login page)", then anchors it to the dashboard equivalent. The scope constraint "Never another agency; whitelabel clients cannot use it" separates it from the generic agency_read/agency_write siblings.

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?

Each action is given a use case (get for current state, update_branding for logos/colour/fonts, upload_asset before passing URLs to the update actions), and two exclusions are stated: other agencies and custom domains, which go through the dashboard. It stops short of naming agency_write as the alternative route for other agencies, so the routing is inferred rather than explicit.

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