manage_brand

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by disclosing what archiving actually destroys and what it does not: the brand leaves the active list, connected accounts stay connected, and scheduled posts still publish. It also surfaces the admin-only authorization requirement and the exact preview/confirm_id protocol.

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 action-by-action structure is front-loaded and each sentence carries real information about prerequisites or consequences. The only waste is the repeated 'Pass confirm=true only after the user agrees' clause in both the create and update sections.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers all three action paths, required inputs, authorization, and the user-facing confirm gate, plus the non-obvious side effects of archiving. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and explain the outcome to the user.

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 100%, so every parameter including confirm, preview_id, and workspace_id is already documented in structured form; the description largely restates those constraints. It does reinforce the sequencing between the preview call and preview_id, but that is also present 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 first sentence gives a specific verb set and resource: 'Create, update, or archive a brand.' Each of the three actions is then enumerated with its own required inputs, so an agent can distinguish this management tool from the sibling list_brands (which is explicitly named as the source of brand_id).

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?

Guidance is explicit per action: create/update/archive are all 'admin only', create needs workspace_id 'from whoami when the key is not already scoped', and archive follows a preview-then-confirm sequence. The description does not name conditions for when-not to use this tool, but no sibling overlaps these mutations, so the routing gap is minor.

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