Update brand fields

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains partial-update semantics, guarantees no overwriting of unspecified fields, and calls out the read-modify-write nature of the operation. This is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it doesn't discuss side effects like validation or response behavior.

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?

Three tightly written sentences. The field list is front-loaded, the targeting examples are concrete, and the alternative tool and usage constraint are placed last. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a 10-parameter, 0-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical operational points: what it patches, what it avoids overwriting, when to use it, and how to pass parameters. Missing return-value details are minor for this tool's selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 60%, leaving name, audience, category, and positioning undocumented in the schema. The description lists all ten field names but adds only marginal semantics, mostly through the examples and the 'only pass changed fields' guidance. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters with deeper definitions.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Patch'), a clear resource ('workspace brand profile'), and enumerates the exact fields it affects. It also disambiguates from draft_brand by saying it is for onboarding from scratch, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

Provides concrete usage examples ('change our voice to playful', 'we sell to dentists now'), explicitly names the alternative tool (draft_brand) and when to use it, and instructs the caller to pass only the fields being changed. This gives clear, actionable selection and invocation guidance.

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