delete_brand_identity

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

Annotations already mark it as destructive and idempotent. The description adds value by noting that it returns disabled schedules or events, but does not disclose permissions needed, irreversibility beyond deletion, or error behavior (e.g., if brand identity not found).

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 short and front-loaded, with one sentence for the action and one for the return. Every sentence provides necessary information, though the second sentence could be clearer about exactly what is returned.

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 simple destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and return value. However, it lacks details on error cases, dependency behavior, or whether the operation is reversible, leaving potential gaps for the agent.

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% for the single parameter, and the schema description sufficiently describes the parameter. The tool description does not add any extra context about the parameter (e.g., format or constraints), so baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (brand identity), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'delete_post' or 'delete_schedule' by specifying the resource type. It also mentions the return value (disabled schedules/events).

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., updating a brand identity or archiving instead). The description only implies the obvious use case of deletion.

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