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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: the update is a partial merge ("Only fields you provide are changed") and there is an auth/ownership constraint on the id. It does not detail irreversibility or required permissions beyond the ownership match.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the two constraints that matter most. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the return value need not be described, and annotations carry the destructive profile. The description covers the essentials (partial update, ownership constraint) for a nested-object mutation, though it could note side effects such as what being destructive entails.

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?

Although top-level schema coverage reads 0%, the nested body fields carry their own descriptions and the body object documents the merge behavior. The description reinforces this semantic ("Only fields you provide are changed") and explains the id path param's ownership requirement, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 (update) and resource (organization settings), so an agent immediately knows this is a mutation on the organization entity. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get-organization or list-organizations, but the verb 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?

Provides a concrete prerequisite: the URL id must match the API key's organization or a 404 results. This is actionable context an agent needs before calling. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. get-organization) or stating when-not to use it, keeping it below 5.

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