update_brand

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

Despite no annotations, the description reveals a critical behavioral trait: the designSpec field is used as a system prompt for AI generation. This adds significant value beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects, permissions, or immediacy of updates.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose, the second provides essential parameter context. Every sentence earns its place, 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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and one key behavioral detail but lacks information on success response, prerequisites (e.g., existing brand), and effects on other workspace elements. It is minimally adequate for a simple update operation.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description only adds meaning to designSpec (explaining its role as a system prompt). For logoUrl and fontFamily, which lack schema descriptions, no additional information is provided. Thus, it partially compensates but not fully.

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 updates workspace brand settings, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_brand (read) and design_email_template (template-level design).

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 usage for updating brand settings but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like design_email_template or when not to use it. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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