create_brand

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavior: the API enforces a plan-based brand limit and returns an error when reached, which is valuable context. But it omits the success response shape, idempotency, and whether duplicate names are rejected, leaving the mutation's full behavior only partially specified.

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 sentences with zero filler: the purpose is front-loaded first, followed by the operative constraint that would otherwise surface as a confusing runtime error. Every sentence earns its place, and the description avoids tautological restatement of the tool name.

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?

The schema fully documents all five parameters and no output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't required. However, with no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it doesn't cover the success response, name uniqueness, or any hidden side effects — adequate for a simple create operation, but with clear gaps.

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% — every parameter (name, website, industry, products, competitors) already has a description in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the plan-limit caveat, so it neither helps nor hurts.

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 ('Create'), resource ('brand'), and scope ('on your AEO Copilot account'), making the operation unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like list_brands, scan_brand, create_topic, and create_index based on verb+resource, though it doesn't name any alternative explicitly.

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 implies when to use the tool — when the user needs to create a brand — and adds one operational constraint: the plan's brand limit will trigger an API error. However, it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites, so the agent must infer selection context from the name and purpose.

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