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

Annotations supply destructiveHint=true, and the description adds a valuable nuance: that a PUT call still behaves as a partial update ('only the fields you pass are changed'), countering the usual full-replacement assumption. It stops short of disclosing permission requirements, reversibility, or what a failed/partial update returns, so it adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the purpose leads and the partial-update caveat follows. Efficient, though it spends a clause on the raw REST verb/path, which is operationally marginal for an agent.

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 13-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and partial-update semantics but leaves many parameters and any permission/return behavior unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is only 46%, leaving phone, website, and all five address_billing_* fields undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the generic partial-update statement, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap across 13 parameters.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Update an organisation', and the sibling set (update_contact, update_lead, etc.) makes the target resource unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from those siblings, but the resource name is specific enough for selection.

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?

'Only the fields you pass are changed' implies partial-update usage, which is genuinely useful for a PUT-style endpoint. However, there is no when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no prerequisite or permission notes, and no alternative tool mentioned.

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