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

The description discloses several behaviors beyond annotations: login is required, private organizations force showOnProfile back to false, partial success is normal per-organization, rate-limited failures should be retried with specific IDs, and contactVisibleToManagers exposes plaintext phone numbers irreversibly to every OWNER/ADMIN. This complements the destructiveHint and does not contradict any annotation.

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 long but densely structured with labeled sections: purpose, combination chain, pitfalls, and a privacy warning. Every sentence adds actionable information, and the core purpose plus default behavior are front-loaded before the caveats.

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 a 6-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, scoping semantics, partial-success behavior, rate-limit retry guidance, and irreversible side effects. It even tells the agent what to read in the response (updated/failed), so no essential information for correct invocation 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?

With only 17% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter-semantics burden and succeeds. It maps each switch category to the boolean parameters, explains that omitting organizationIds means all my organizations, requires at least one switch to be set, and imposes the explicit-organizationIds rule for contactVisibleToManagers.

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 states a specific verb and resource: changing my own organization membership switches, and enumerates exactly which switches those are (profile display, matching opt-in, contact visibility, notifications). It also explicitly excludes role changes and member removal, distinguishing it from membership-administration tools and other update_* siblings.

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 gives an explicit combination chain: read current values with list_my_organization_memberships or list_my_organization_notifications, then call this tool, then interpret updated/failed. It also states when not to use it (cannot change roles or kick members) and gives a special precondition for contactVisibleToManagers: must pass organizationIds explicitly and confirm org names with the user.

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