ghl_brand_board_create_design_kit

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the description is not required to establish the write profile. It adds real value beyond that with the endpoint path, the v3 version header, the source spec file, the sub-account token requirement, and the required OAuth scope (brand-boards/design-kit.write) — information an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first two lines and the auth/scope metadata is compressed into short lines. The endpoint and source-file metadata is boilerplate but still operationally useful; nothing is redundant enough to hurt.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the auth model, required scope, endpoint, and API version — the operational essentials an agent needs before invoking it. Remaining details (response shape) are not required for correct invocation, and body semantics are fully covered by 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 description coverage is 100%, so the body fields (type, url, colors, fonts, logos) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the body or locationId beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 verb and resource ('Create a design kit for a location'), and the scoping to a location is explicit. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ghl_brand_board_create or ghl_brand_board_update_design_kit, but the object created is unambiguous.

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 prerequisite 'Requires a Sub-Account (location) token' implies when this call is valid, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over ghl_brand_board_update_design_kit, ghl_brand_board_set_default_design_kit, or ghl_brand_board_create, and no stated exclusions or failure conditions.

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