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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further by explaining the destruction concretely (a passed value overwrites the current one and no tool returns the old value afterwards) and by disclosing the confirmation-token workflow and the organization:manage/owner-role requirement. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four dense but purposeful clauses: what changes, overwrite/irreversibility semantics, the confirmation workflow, and the permission gate. The mutation scope is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining gaps an agent would hit: partial-update behavior, irreversibility, the mandatory preview/confirm handshake, and authorization requirements. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it defines the three payload fields and the omitted-equals-unchanged semantics of a partial update, and explains the role of confirmationToken. It leaves organizationId (self-evident) and the explicit-null-vs-omitted distinction unaddressed, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 (change) and resource (organization) plus the exact mutable fields (name, description, contact email). Among siblings such as archive_organization, restore_organization, and create_organization, the scope is unmistakable without opening a schema.

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 explicit prerequisites and sequencing: call preview_operation with tool "update_organization" and the same arguments first, show the plan to the user, and invoke only after explicit agreement. It also names the required permission and role, 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.