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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value with the PATCH-style semantics ('Only the fields you pass are changed'), but omits any auth requirements, side effects, or consequences of the destructive update.

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 no wasted words; the partial-update semantic and API endpoint are stated plainly. The API endpoint detail is marginally useful but does not bloat the text.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and 46% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It does not clarify how custom_fields, owner_user_id, or the address fields behave, nor what the response returns after an update.

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 only 46%, so the description carries a compensation burden it does not meet. Beyond naming ORGANISATION_ID in the API call string, it provides no field-level meaning for the 13 parameters, leaving many undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Update an organisation') and clarifies the underlying API operation ('PUT /Organisations with ORGANISATION_ID'). It implicitly separates itself from the sibling insightly_create_organisation, but does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives like insightly_create_organisation or insightly_get_record. The partial-update note hints at the edit workflow but stops short of routing guidance.

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