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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the critical behavior: there is no session state, so the call is a no-op and org resolution happens automatically on every call. It stops short of saying what actually happens on invocation (success response, error, side-effect-free return) and what the `_org` parameter does when supplied.

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?

One sentence, appropriately short for a no-op tool, and "No-op hint" is front-loaded. The ADR 0038 reference is noise an agent cannot act on, and the nested parenthetical makes the core message harder to extract than it needs to be.

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 one-parameter no-op, the essentials are present: it does nothing, there is no session state, and org changes occur in the dashboard. Missing is any statement of the invocation outcome and of what to call instead, which an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool would want.

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 0% for the single `_org` parameter, so the description has to compensate and largely does not. It references an `_org=` token in prose but neither explains the type/format, nor what passing it to this no-op tool would accomplish, nor how it relates to the claim that org is changed in the dashboard only.

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?

"No-op hint" does convey that the tool performs no action, which is the single most important thing to know about oto_clear_org, but the phrase is buried in a parenthetical alongside an ADR citation rather than stated plainly. The description never says directly that clearing org is unnecessary because org is not part of session state, leaving the agent to assemble that meaning from the name plus a fragment.

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?

It implies the tool should not be needed and points at the dashboard as the real place to change org, which is a form of when-not-to-use guidance. However it never explicitly says "do not call this" and never names oto_use_org or oto_list_orgs as the alternative for agents that want to target a different org.

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