Update a brand (tokens deep-merge)

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the sparse openWorldHint annotation: objects merge, arrays replace, null clears, drafts restyle immediately, and published assets pick changes up on next publish. This gives an agent a concrete model of side effects and timing. There is no contradiction with the 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?

Two dense sentences deliver merge semantics, timing, and the version requirement without unnecessary padding. The most important behavioral details are front-loaded, making the description easy to scan and act on.

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 complex nested-token update with no output schema, the description covers critical call-preparation facts: merge rules, version token, and publish timing. It leaves response shape and the updateable scalar fields to inference, but the accompanying schema's lengthy tokens property description fills in additional constraints.

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 description adds meaning for the tokens parameter (merge rules) and for expectedVersion (must come from list_brands). However, schema description coverage is only 20%, and the description does not clarify the name or isDefault parameters, so it only partially compensates for the schema's gaps.

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 verb and resource: 'Update a brand' with 'Deep-merges tokens' explaining the primary mechanism. The title's parenthetical '(tokens deep-merge)' reinforces the scope. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_brand or update_asset.

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 a key usage prerequisite: 'Requires expectedVersion from list_brands.' It also explains when changes take effect for drafts versus published assets. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer create_brand or update_asset, leaving some inference to the agent.

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