asset_brand_bundle_parse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, signaling safe, idempotent operation. The description adds the context that it parses into a specific schema, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and inputs without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema needed) and clear sibling context, the description is fully adequate. It specifies input types and output target, making the tool's usage unambiguous.

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 a single parameter. The description enriches the parameter's meaning by listing example source formats (brand.json, DTCG tokens, etc.), providing actionable context beyond the schema's bare description 'Path to file or raw text'.

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 specifies the verb 'Parse', the resource 'brand source', and lists specific formats (brand.json, DTCG tokens, AdCP spec, brand.md, raw text). It also states the output target 'canonical BrandBundle schema', distinguishing it from sibling tools that generate or edit assets.

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?

The description implies this tool is for converting brand source files, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or excluded scenarios. Usage is implied but not clearly directed.

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