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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to add specifics — and it does, disclosing that tags and customFields are replaced wholesale rather than merged, plus the PATCH endpoint. It omits how to clear a field or what the response looks like, so not exhaustive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the partial-update rule, then the destructive caveat, then the lookup precondition, then the endpoint. Nothing is redundant.

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?

The high-risk aspects (partial send, array replacement, verify-before-write) are covered, which is the important part for a 24-parameter destructive mutation. But with no output schema and half the parameters undocumented, an agent still lacks guidance on field-level semantics and on what the call returns.

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% across 24 parameters, so the description needs to carry meaning for the undocumented ones. It only explains the replace-on-update behavior of tags and customFields, leaving fields like fax, website, profession, and all billing/shipping address parameters entirely unexplained 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?

'WRITE: change fields of an existing organization' gives a precise verb, resource and mutation class, and 'only the fields you pass are sent' pins the partial-update semantics. Together with 'existing' it separates this from pobuca_create_organization and pobuca_update_contact without needing either schema.

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 states a clear precondition — look the organization up first and confirm the right one — which is exactly the guidance needed before a destructive PATCH. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g., create_organization for a new record) or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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