Set project branding

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context: the brand kit is stored on the board config, and by default applies to the project website. No contradictions with annotations.

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, concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: first defines purpose, second adds storage and default behavior. No waste.

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?

Despite 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use case (setting brand kit), mentions related tool (get_branding), and explains default side effect (apply to site). It lacks details on return value but that's acceptable without output schema.

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 has high description coverage (90%), so baseline is 3. The description lists key parameters but doesn't add new semantic depth beyond what the schema provides. It does reinforce the overall purpose of the parameters.

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 verb 'Set', the resource 'project's brand kit', and the scope 'in one place'. It differentiates from sibling tool get_branding by noting 'retrieve it with get_branding'.

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 gives context on when to use (set brand kit) and mentions the alternative get_branding for retrieval. It also notes the default behavior of applying to the project website. However, it does not explicitly exclude other sibling tools that might set project configuration.

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