saas_alerts_partner_update_branding

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical behavioral context: 'This overwrites existing branding' and 'Confirm with the user before invoking.' These go beyond the annotation flags by specifying what is affected and the required user confirmation step. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true).

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 concise and front-loaded with a warning emoji and 'HIGH-IMPACT'. It packs purpose, overwrite behavior, and user-confirmation requirement into two short sentences. Every element earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple update tool with one nested parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, that it overwrites, and that confirmation is required. The schema documents the payload. No significant gaps remain for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'body' parameter, describing it as 'Branding payload (logoUrl, primaryColor, etc.)'. The description adds minimal new information (e.g., 'logo, colours') but does not meaningfully enhance understanding beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Update the partner branding settings (logo, colours, etc.)'. It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('partner branding settings'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'saas_alerts_partner_get_profile' by implying mutation vs. read. The additional phrase 'This overwrites existing branding' further clarifies the purpose and impact.

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 provides clear context: it is high-impact, overwrites existing branding, and instructs to 'Confirm with the user before invoking.' This gives practical guidance on when and how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'use get_profile for viewing') or exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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