create_brand

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the brand is set as active, that a nextStep payload is returned, and that onboarding fails without a description. This gives the agent a clear understanding of side effects and prerequisites.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the step and path, and packed with essential flow information. No redundant wording; every clause contributes.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value (nextStep payload) and provides the immediate next action. It covers the prerequisite (description) and failure condition, making it complete for this multi-step onboarding tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds crucial context: description is effectively mandatory regardless of schema's conditional requirement, and website is not used in the manual path. It also clarifies the name/description are the user-supplied inputs.

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?

Clearly states it creates a new brand from user-supplied name/description, sets it active, and returns a nextStep payload. Distinguishes itself as STEP 1 of manual onboarding, differentiating from sibling tools like set_brand_mediums or onboard_brand.

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?

Explicitly positions itself as STEP 1 of the manual onboarding path, implying a website-crawl alternative exists. It provides direct next-step instructions to call set_brand_mediums after the user answers, but doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use it.

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