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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation and idempotency are known. The description adds value by noting 'Only provided fields change' (partial update behavior) and requiring 'admin scope and org-admin role', which are not in annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The action and fields are front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and auth. Every sentence contributes essential information, and the structure is clean and scannable.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters and an output schema (not shown), so return values are covered elsewhere. The description includes the action, scope, partial-update behavior, use case, and required permissions. It lacks any mention of side effects beyond mutation (which destructiveHint covers) but is otherwise complete for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds only a general note that only provided fields change, which applies to all parameters rather than individual semantics. It does not explain enum values or parameter relationships beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Updates organization settings' and enumerates the specific fields (name, default_connectivity_mode, global_whitelist), distinguishing it from create/delete/configure_display tools. The scope 'for all its displays' clarifies it operates at the org level, separating it from per-display configuration.

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 provides an explicit 'Use when an org admin renames the organization or declares network topology' condition, which is direct guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., configure_display for per-display settings), but the scope statement 'for all its displays' implies the distinction, making the usage context clear.

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