Switch brand

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

Annotations already note idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: persistence across surfaces (hosted connector, no env vars/restart) and membership verification for shared workspaces. It enriches the agent's understanding of state and side effects without contradicting annotations.

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 somewhat long (four sentences) but each sentence adds essential context: purpose, accepted inputs, shared-workspace nuance, and persistence. It is logically organized and front-loads the core action before diving into edge cases. 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential scenarios: own brand, shared brand, input formats, persistence, and access verification. It does not explain the return value, but that is not expected without an output schema. The definition is complete for correct 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 100% and the schema already describes the 'brand' parameter thoroughly (id, name, profile id). The description reinforces these options but adds only incremental nuance about shared workspace verification. Since the schema carries the main meaning, this is a baseline 3.

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's purpose: "Pin which brand this connection acts on" for multi-brand accounts. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_brands (which lists) and create_brand/delete_brand (which manage) by focusing on the active selection. The wording is specific and avoids tautology.

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 clear context for when to use it (multi-brand accounts, own or shared) and explicitly references list_brands as the source of valid inputs. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this when you need to switch the active brand' but the function is evident. It lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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