update_organization

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'partial update' implying PATCH semantics, but does not clarify whether unspecified fields are left unchanged or cleared. No details on idempotency, side effects, or required permissions.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Could be slightly improved by adding structure (e.g., separate note about partial update).

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or when updates are effective. The context of this tool among organization-related siblings is not leveraged.

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 coverage is only 20% (only 'id' has description). The description adds 'partial update' hint, but does not explain semantics for parameters like 'customData', 'isMfaRequired', or 'description'. The value added over raw schema is minimal.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('Logto organization'), the identifier ('by ID'), and the nature of the update ('partial update'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_organization, delete_organization, or get_organization.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs create, or prerequisites for updating). There is no mention of required permissions, error conditions, or cautionary notes.

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