Update domain branding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that only provided fields are changed, which is a key behavioral trait, and it discloses cross-field dependencies (darkLogoUrl/menuLogoUrl/faviconUrl require logoUrl). It also explains the capabilities of style objects, adding value beyond the schema.

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 four short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, describing partial update behavior, noting dependencies, and summarizing style options. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids any unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description adequately covers the core behaviors and constraints. It explains partial updates and dependency rules, though it doesn't mention potential mutations' side effects or permission requirements. The schema covers parameter details, so the description focuses on operational nuance, which is appropriate.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all 10 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics by explaining the dependency chain among logo URLs and clarifying the distinction between adminStyle (which can include colorPrimary/colorSecondary) and webmailStyle. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond 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 description uses a specific verb+resource ('Update the white-label branding of a domain'), which clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update_domain (general domain settings) or get_domain_brand (read). It also provides specifics about partial updates and style options, reinforcing the tool's scope.

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?

While the description doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, it establishes clear usage context by indicating this is for white-label branding with partial updates. The dependency on logoUrl for certain fields and the grouping of style properties provide practical guidance on when and how to invoke the tool. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' but is otherwise clear.

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