Sigma Reset Org Email Branding

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

The description explicitly warns it is a destructive operation and requires confirm=True, which adds critical behavioral context beyond the annotations. This is sufficient given the annotations already cover destructive and read-only hints, and the description reinforces the safety requirement.

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 are efficient and front-load the purpose and the critical safety requirement. The description is appropriately concise with no wasted words.

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?

Given the destructive nature, the description covers the key requirement of confirm=True, but it omits any detail about what settings are reset or the impact on existing configurations. With annotations already covering safety, a 3 is reasonable.

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 has one parameter 'confirm' with no description, and the description mentions confirm=True but does not explain what it does beyond implicating confirmation. The description adds minimal value over the schema, and since schema coverage is 0%, more explicit parameter guidance would be needed.

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 tool resets organization email branding settings to defaults, identifying the specific resource and action. It is distinct from siblings, which focus on other resources like reports, members, or workspaces.

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 implies the tool is for resetting email branding, but it does not provide when to use it versus alternatives or what preconditions might exist. There is no explicit mention of when not to use it, though the destructive annotation helps.

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