billy_update_organization

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately reveals the critical two-step confirmation pattern (dry-run vs. actual execution). It does not cover other behavioral aspects like idempotency, rate limits, or error handling, but the key behavior is transparent.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that deliver essential information. It uses clear formatting and front-loads the purpose and critical usage note. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and the importance of the update operation, the description covers the main purpose and the confirmation workflow. However, it lacks details on return values, success/failure indicators, and prerequisites, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

The schema covers 50% of parameters (2 parameters, 1 required). The description adds value by listing example fields for the 'patch' object, which is otherwise a free-form object in the schema. However, it does not provide detailed descriptions for each field, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 clearly states the tool updates fields on the organization, uses a specific verb ('Update'), and references the resource ('organization'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that update other entities (e.g., billy_update_account, billy_update_bill). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 description explains that this is a WRITE operation requiring confirm:true, and implies a dry-run mechanism without confirm. It provides clear guidance on the confirmation workflow. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other update tools or when not to use it.

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