Delete Brand

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by describing exactly what deletion does to dependent items (fallback to account default vs. baking values via sync_to_customizations), the protected default brand, the required permission scopes, and the confirm gate. This is precisely the consequence-level disclosure a destructive hint alone cannot convey.

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 core behavior and the sync_to_customizations tradeoff are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The trailing permission/confirm boilerplate is a bit templated and long, but each block is relevant to a mutation call.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the definition covers consequences, protected resources, auth scopes, and confirmation. It could be slightly stronger on whether the deletion is reversible or restorable, but nothing critical for a correct call 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including sync_to_customizations' full effect. The description restates the sync behavior in prose, adding emphasis but not new semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Deletes a brand") and immediately explains the downstream effect on items the brand was applied to. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like update_brand, apply_brand, or create_brand, but the name and lead sentence make the operation unambiguous.

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 cannot be deleted) and states the confirm=true and permission prerequisites. It stops short of naming alternatives such as update_brand or apply_brand when a brand should be modified rather than removed.

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