Replace the workspace branding (admin)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true but say nothing about execution gating; the description adds that without confirm: true no request is sent and a preview is returned, and that there is no server-side dry run. 'Replace' also signals full overwrite rather than a partial patch, which is meaningful for a 6-field required body. It could go further on reversibility or what the preview contains.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the safety gate. The opening clause largely restates the title, which is minor waste, but nothing else is extraneous.

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 a nested object body, no output schema and full-overwrite semantics, the description covers the execute gate but leaves gaps: it does not say whether the body fully replaces all branding fields (wiping anything unset), what the preview response looks like, or what permissions/plan tier are required beyond 'admin'.

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 description coverage is 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of confirm (the write gate) but adds nothing about the nested body's six required fields, their formats, or whether omitted/null values clear existing settings — those rely entirely on schema patterns and nullability.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Replace the workspace branding') plus the underlying endpoint (PUT /v1/branding) and an admin qualifier, so the agent knows exactly what is mutated. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling branding_get, but 'replace' versus read is unambiguous.

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 conveys the critical gate (nothing executes without confirm: true), which implicitly tells the agent when the write actually happens. It gives no guidance on when to use this versus branding_get for inspection, nor any prerequisites such as required admin role beyond the parenthetical label.

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