generate_brand_identity

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

Annotations show `destructiveHint: false`. The description adds that the tool scrapes the website and extracts brand info, and that the operation is async. This provides good behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 sentences: the first states purpose and mechanism, the second provides follow-up instructions. Every sentence adds value, front-loaded with the key action.

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?

Without an output schema, the description notes the async nature and refers to a status polling tool. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke and monitor the operation, though it does not describe the final output format.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions scraping the website (related to `websiteUrl`), but does not add semantics for the `name` parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 the specific verb "Queue async... generation" and the resource "brand identity from a website URL". It clearly distinguishes from siblings like `get_brand_identity` and `get_brand_identity_generation_status`.

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 explains when to use the tool (to start generation) and provides clear guidance to poll with `get_brand_identity_generation_status`. It does not explicitly list exclusions but gives sufficient context for an async workflow.

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