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

Annotations already declare the mutation is non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral detail that the signed-in user becomes owner, but omits auth requirements, slug handling, and failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and owner side effect are conveyed immediately.

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 output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It covers the basic outcome but leaves gaps around parameters, slug behavior, and when the operation should be chosen over alternatives.

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%, and the description says nothing about the 'name' or 'slug' parameters. It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving parameter meaning entirely to inference from the parameter names.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Creates an organization') and adds a relevant side effect ('the signed-in user becomes its owner'). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as org_list or org_rename.

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 only the bare action, with no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives like org_list or register_agent. A user must infer that this is the tool for creating new organizations.

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