Manage invitation branding

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, readOnly=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: org-key scoping and the fact that update returns the resulting branding. It does not flag that the addon_required condition for the footer lives in the schema, but that is minor.

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?

Front-loads the purpose sentence, then a compact two-item action list. Every sentence contributes; only the slightly prose-heavy first line keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly notes that update returns the branding. For a 6-parameter multi-action tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete; only the addon gate for hideWuapiBranding is left to the 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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including null-clearing semantics and the addon requirement. The description's field list (display name, logo, accent color, support link, footer) merely maps to those params without adding format or behavior detail. 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?

States a specific resource (invitation branding) and enumerates the exact surface it controls — invitation page, email, display name, logo, accent color, support link, footer. An agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like manage_profile or manage_privacy without opening the schema.

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 action list defines when to use get vs update and what each returns. 'Organization keys only' gives the scope prerequisite. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the tool is distinct enough that this is minor.

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