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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the auth requirement, the mandatory preview/consent two-step gate, optimistic concurrency via `expectedUpdatedAt`, and the public-exposure consequence of `publicHomeEnabled`. It stops short of describing conflict behavior when `expectedUpdatedAt` is stale or what the preview step returns.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the caller requirement and the preview-then-save sequence, with zero filler. Every clause either states a precondition, a required parameter combination, or a scope limit.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested value object, the description covers auth, workflow, concurrency token, and side-effect boundaries well. The remaining gap is the inner config fields and any conflict/failure semantics, which neither the schema nor the description explains.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the four workflow-critical top-level params (preview, previewHash, consent, expectedUpdatedAt) plus the publicHomeEnabled side effect. However the nested `value` object has nine undocumented properties, and opaque ones like `externalCandidateKind` (CLOUD/ALL) and `defaultPriceCents` nullability get no meaning from the text.

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 names the concrete operation (saving the teahouse's business configuration) and explicitly bounds its scope ('仅经营默认值，不改已有活动、不收款或启用商户'). It distinguishes itself from general org mutation siblings via that negative scoping, though it never names `update_organization` or `get_organization_teahouse` outright, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Strong procedural guidance: it states the caller must be a logged-in organization manager, prescribes preview-first then save with identical params plus previewHash/consent=true/preview=false, and rules out side effects on activities, payments, and merchant enablement. What's missing is an explicit pointer to the preview call or the read tool that supplies `expectedUpdatedAt` and `previewHash`.

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