white_label_config_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: plan gating ('Business plan only') and the client-facing effect of removeBranding on PDFs and emails.

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 front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The purpose, plan restriction, and configurable fields are presented efficiently.

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 five-parameter config update with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is largely complete: it states the plan requirement and the effect of branding removal. Minor gaps are no routing to white_label_config_get/verify_domain and no mention of customDomain resets, though the schema covers the latter.

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%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters, including the customDomain verification-reset behavior. The description lists app name, accent color, enable toggle, and footer removal, but omits customDomain entirely and adds little meaning beyond the already-rich schema.

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 and resource ('Create or update the organization's white-label branding') and enumerates the configurable fields. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling white_label_config_get or white_label_config_verify_domain.

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?

It includes a useful prerequisite ('Business plan only') and implies the tool is for setting branding, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus white_label_config_get or white_label_config_verify_domain, nor any note about the verification flow after changing a domain.

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