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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent mutation, but the description adds critical context the annotations cannot: the partial-update semantics (omitted args unchanged), the mandatory confirmation-token handshake, and the permission/role gate. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads purpose, then the confirmation workflow, then permissions. Every clause carries information, though the run-on structure could be broken into shorter sentences for faster scanning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Between the annotations, the partial-update rule, the confirmation workflow, and the permission requirements, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It names the three updatable fields (name, description, contactEmail) and explains the confirmationToken's role plus the default-unchanged behavior. It leaves organizationId semantics and format constraints (e.g. name maxLength, email format) to the 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+resource (change name, description or contact email of an organization) and adds the partial-update rule. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_organization, archive_organization, and restore_organization.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: call preview_operation with tool "update_organization" first, show the returned plan, and only call after explicit user agreement. It also names the required permission (organization:manage) and role (owner), so the agent knows when the call is even permitted.

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