Draft brand profile

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it's 0 credits, it cannot ask the user (caller owns verification), and it warns that a domain can resolve to a different company than intended (bala.com vs shopbala.com). This discloses a real failure mode and the save:false workflow, which no annotation conveys.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the IMPORTANT paragraph is justified because it flags a critical verification pitfall that materially affects correct invocation. Slightly long, but each segment (purpose, credit cost, domain-mismatch warning, save semantics) earns its place.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the input sources, the ambiguous-domain risk, the save semantics, and the credit cost. It could add the exact return shape beyond the partial {name, products, logo, …}, but what's needed to call it correctly and safely is present.

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 100%, so all five parameters (save, domain, platform, description, socialHandle) are already documented in the schema. The description names the three input sources and references save:false, which lightly reinforces parameter meaning, but adds little beyond what the schema provides — the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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 states a specific verb ('onboard a brand profile'), the resource (brand), three input sources (domain, free-text description, social handle), and the output shape ({name, products, logo, …} object). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling brand tools (create_brand, update_brand, get_brand) by describing the draft-from-source behavior, so an agent can tell it apart without opening sibling schemas.

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 gives workflow guidance — results can be passed to plan_ad/generate, and the caller should verify name/summary and re-draft with save:false until confirmed. However, it never explicitly contrasts draft_brand with the sibling create_brand/update_brand tools or states when to pick one over the other, so the 'when to use vs alternative' guidance is implied rather than stated.

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