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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does provide the owner-only restriction, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not explain whether updates are partial or full replacements, how missing fields are handled, or any permission/error implications. The schema shows all parameters are optional, but the description does not explicitly state that updating is cumulative or that only provided fields are changed.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Update your organization's details') and then lists the editable fields. There is no redundant or filler text; every part contributes to understanding the tool's function. This is an exemplary model of brevity.

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 an update tool with all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It identifies the target entity, the constraints (owner only), and the specific fields that can be modified. What it lacks is explicit behavioral context about partial updates or potential side effects, but given the simplicity of the tool and rich schema, the description covers the essential aspects well.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter described (e.g., 'Organization name (optional)', 'Links as JSON array: [...]'). The description merely lists the same fields without adding new semantic meaning (e.g., formats, constraints, or relationships). Given the high schema coverage, the description adds no additional parameter-level value, so the baseline score of 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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'your organization's details', and enumerates the specific fields that can be modified (name, description, business model, objectives, custom context, links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like setup_organization (creation) and get_org_stats (read-only), making the purpose 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?

The description specifies an important usage condition: 'owner only'. This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate (only for organization owners) and implicitly warns against using it for non-owners. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the 'owner only' constraint provides clear context for when to use this tool versus other update or setup tools.

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