Update brand kit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. But the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it never says whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved (partial vs. full replace), which is the single most consequential question for a destructive update, nor does it mention permissions or irreversibility.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence is doing load-bearing work it isn't precise enough to carry.

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?

A destructive 9-parameter mutation with nested objects, zero schema coverage, and no output schema needs far more: partial-vs-replace semantics, per-field meaning, and what is returned. The description leaves an agent able to identify the tool but not to invoke it safely.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely fails. 'Body has the same shape as create_brand_kit' is a cross-reference that gives no field-level meaning for fonts, palette, gradeBias, voiceTone, enforcement, logoAssetUrl, or forbiddenColors, and the agent has no guarantee create_brand_kit's schema is visible in context.

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 ('Update an existing brand profile') plus the lookup key ('by id'), which separates it cleanly from create_brand_kit, delete_brand_kit, and get_brand_kit in the sibling list. It doesn't name those siblings explicitly, but the verb makes the distinction obvious.

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?

Usage is implied by 'existing ... by id' — the agent infers it must already have a brand_id from list_brand_kits or get_brand_kit. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of whether create_brand_kit should be preferred for new kits.

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