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

Annotations already mark this idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds behavioral context beyond them by giving the HTTP PATCH path, required `org:manage` scope, and noting the same billing and rate limits apply. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short, front-loads the core action, and adds only a few operationally relevant details. The 'do not invent other paths' line is slightly defensive but still earns its place against hallucinated endpoints.

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 simple, optional-field PATCH with no output schema, the description covers scope, endpoint, and rate-limit expectations. It does not explain partial-update semantics when no fields are supplied, but that is a minor gap given the schema and annotations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description only adds that APNs-specific parameters are included, which is useful but not necessary beyond the schema.

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: 'Updates the current organization's settings, including APNs credentials.' The target is clearly the organization, not apps, passes, or templates, which distinguishes it from the many 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 clear context for when to use it: updating the current organization's settings, and it declares the required scope `org:manage`. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid, but the org-scoped context is enough to route an agent correctly.

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