Create a brand workspace

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

The description discloses that the tool switches to the new workspace, that it is free but triggers a ~50-credit research cascade only when draft_brand is run, and that re-running with the same name returns the existing workspace. These details go beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and add meaningful behavioral context.

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 five sentences and each adds value, front-loading the core action and expanding with scope, usage, and cost. It is slightly long but well-structured, efficiently packing information without redundancy.

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 and lack of output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: workspace isolation, typical usage, idempotence, and cost implications. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without further clarification.

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 already describes both parameters (name and activate) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It mentions workspace isolation and switching, which indirectly relates to 'activate', but not explicitly; this meets the baseline for full-schema coverage.

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 adds a new brand workspace and switches to it, enumerating the isolated contents (brand profile, memory, swipefile, etc.). It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools draft_brand and update_brand, leaving no ambiguity about the purpose.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('for a second brand or a new client') and when to use alternatives ('draft_brand to FILL a workspace, and update_brand to edit one'). It also clarifies the idempotent re-run behavior, which helps an agent decide correctly.

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