Set project branding

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds that branding is stored on board config, retrievable via get_branding, and by default applies colors/font to the project website. This goes beyond annotations by revealing a side effect ('applies to website') and default behavior.

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?

Three sentences: first clearly defines the action, second explains storage and retrieval, third describes default side effect. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description effectively covers the tool's purpose, side effects, and relationship to get_branding. It could clarify whether setting partial values merges or overwrites, but the idempotent hint and schema suggest overwrite. Overall, it is nearly complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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?

With 90% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by grouping them (name, tagline, brand words, etc.) and explaining the default behavior of applyToSite. It also hints at the 'one place' nature, but does not elaborate on parameter interactions or constraints beyond 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?

The description clearly states it sets the project's brand kit, lists the components (name, tagline, brand words, etc.), and contrasts with get_branding for retrieval. It is specific about the resource and action, distinguishing it from siblings.

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 provides context for when to use (to set branding for consistency) and references get_branding for retrieval. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling set_site or set_site_analytics could be confused; however, the description clearly targets brand kit, not other site settings.

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