bdesign_organization_get

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is non-mutating; the description earns credit for clarifying that 'preview removing' is a dry run that applies nothing, which prevents an agent from misreading the tool as destructive. It stops short of saying what the preview returns, whether removals are blocked by dependencies, or how deep the folder/Element tree is returned.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the primary read behavior is front-loaded ahead of the optional preview mode.

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?

A nested preview object, zero required parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage mean the description carries full burden and does not meet it: the return shape, projectId scoping, and mutual exclusivity of folderId/elementId are all left to guesswork.

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 names no parameters. It hints that only 'one folder or Element' can be previewed at a time, which loosely maps to preview.folderId vs preview.elementId, but projectId's role, whether it is required, and the folderId/elementId alternative are entirely undocumented.

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 specific verb and resource set: reads project folders and versioned Elements, plus a dry-run removal preview. This distinguishes it reasonably from write-side siblings like bdesign_organization_apply, though it never explains what an 'Element' is or how this differs from bdesign_project_get / bdesign_asset_get.

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?

The mention of an optional preview mode implies a read-vs-apply split, but the description never explicitly says 'use bdesign_organization_apply to actually delete' or when the preview is warranted (e.g. before destructive cleanup). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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