edubase_post_organization_department

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-read, non-destructive write operation. The description adds a meaningful behavioral nuance about visibility of sub-department members and lack of permission inheritance, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not describe other side effects, error conditions, or idempotency implications, but the core behavior is covered.

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. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds a relevant behavioral caveat about hierarchy and permissions. There is no redundancy or filler, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 has 8 parameters, 3 enums, and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral trait. It does not mention prerequisites like authentication or the need for an existing organization, but the schema's required parameters (organization, title) imply that. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, so the description is adequately complete for a create operation.

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% – every parameter has a description, including enums and defaults. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it adds no extra semantic value. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the full parameter documentation.

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 clear verb ('Create') and resource ('a department in an organization'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling operations like patch and delete through the explicit 'Create' action, and the note about department hierarchy adds specificity without confusion.

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 provides some context about department hierarchy and permission non-inheritance, which helps an agent understand the implications of creating a department. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like edubase_patch_organization_department or edubase_delete_organization_department, leaving some inference to the agent.

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