white_label_config_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a mutation toggling branding on/off and that disabling reverts to default branding. However, it doesn't disclose whether fields are independently patchable (partial updates), what happens with concurrent enable/disable states, or the authorization/permission requirements beyond the Business plan hint. The customDomain parameter's reset-verification side effect is disclosed in the schema, not the description.

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 compact, single-sentence listing of the tool's purpose with an optional clarifying clause about the footer removal. Zero waste, no redundancy, appropriately front-loaded with the most important facts (white-label branding, Business plan).

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 an update/configuration tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema covers the key behavioral aspects well. The main gap is the lack of a plan-qualification mention beyond 'Business plan only' and no guidance on how partial updates work, but these are minor gaps given the strong schema documentation.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds a high-level summary of the configurable fields but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema's per-parameter descriptions already provide (e.g., hex format, max chars, domain reset behavior are all in the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 this tool creates or updates the organization's white-label branding, listing the specific customizable fields (app name, accent color, toggle, footer removal). The Business plan requirement and 'Storno.ro' footer removal distinguish it from any sibling like white_label_config_get, making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 mentions the Business plan restriction and notes the 'when off' behavior uses default Storno branding, giving some usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs white_label_config_get or white_label_config_verify_domain, and doesn't provide guidance on sequencing (e.g., domain verification steps after setting customDomain).

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