vtex_create_brand

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new brand', which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the creation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a brand ID). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 this is a mutation tool (create operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what the tool returns (e.g., brand ID, success confirmation), error conditions, or system behavior post-creation. For a tool that modifies state, this lack of information could lead to incorrect usage or misinterpretation of results.

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%, with all parameters clearly documented in the schema (Name, Text, Keywords, Active). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples, constraints, or usage notes. However, with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new brand'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vtex_update_brand' (update vs. create) and 'vtex_delete_brand' (create vs. delete). However, it doesn't specify what constitutes a 'brand' in this context, leaving some ambiguity compared to more detailed descriptions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing brands), or refer to related tools like 'vtex_update_brand' or 'vtex_list_brands'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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