Organization Update

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuine context beyond them: the partial-update contract ("only provide fields to change") and the required admin authorization, both of which affect how the agent invokes it.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The primary action leads, followed by the update contract and the permission requirement.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and a safety-profile annotation set, the description supplies the key behavioral facts (partial update, admin auth) an agent needs. No output schema exists but the tool is a simple mutation, so return-value detail is not critical.

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 every parameter (including the reserved per-field semantics like empty-string restore-default) is already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the partial-update contract, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Update the settings of an organization"), which an agent can distinguish from organization_get, organization_list, and organization_usage. It does not, however, explicitly name or route against any sibling update tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 two useful conditions: provide only the fields to change (partial-update semantics) and an admin permission prerequisite. But it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never points to an alternative (e.g. organization_get to inspect current settings first), leaving usage only implied.

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