Delete Brand

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), which only flag the operation as a non-idempotent write. The description discloses the actual fallout: applied items revert to the account default brand, or with sync_to_customizations are baked into each item's customizations first, plus token/permission and confirm requirements.

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?

Front-loads the core deletion behavior and its side effect in the first sentence, then places the constraint and permission requirements afterward. The permissions/confirm block is somewhat boilerplate-heavy, keeping it from a 5.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers behavior, irreversible consequences, the default-brand exclusion, authorization scope and the confirm requirement. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by framing sync_to_customizations as the branch that decides the fate of the brand's applied items, and by documenting the built-in block on deleting the default brand. It stops short of 5 because the per-parameter text largely duplicates the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a brand') and immediately describes the consequences, which cleanly separates it from siblings like update_brand, apply_brand, get_brand and list_brands. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-not condition (the account-level default brand with is_default: true can't be deleted) plus the required permission scope and confirm=true prerequisite. It doesn't route to a specific alternative operation (e.g. sync via update_brand instead of deleting), so it stops short of a full 5.

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