ghl_brand_board_update_design_kit

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and idempotent=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful operational context: a Sub-Account (location) token is required and the brand-boards/design-kit.write OAuth scope is needed. It does not, however, disclose partial-update behavior or that array fields wholesale replace existing values.

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 first two lines restate the title redundantly ('Update Design Kit' / 'Update a design kit by ID'), and the spec-source metadata ('source: v3/brand-boards-v3.json') adds little for an agent. The endpoint and auth facts are front-loaded and earn their place, but the boilerplate dilutes it.

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?

Auth requirements and endpoint are covered, and the nested body schema is self-documenting. Missing for a PATCH with a nested object body: whether omitted fields are left untouched versus cleared, and what the call returns (no output schema exists, so some return-shape hint would help).

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% with rich per-field descriptions (including the id-to-update vs omit-to-add semantics for fonts, logos and colors), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing beyond restating 'by ID' for locationId/designKitId, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 ('Update a design kit by ID') plus the exact endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous against siblings like create/delete/get/list_design_kit. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus ghl_brand_board_create_design_kit, ghl_brand_board_set_default_design_kit, or ghl_brand_board_update (the parent brand board). The PATCH semantics imply an edit, but the agent must infer the selection criteria.

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