update_organization

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses auth requirement, None ambiguity, and clear_* flag behavior. However, it omits potential side effects, success return behavior, and idempotency hints. Output schema likely covers return, but description doesn't mention 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?

Description is concise (~8 sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then constraints, then parameter details. No unnecessary content.

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?

Covers purpose, auth, and main parameters. With output schema present, return values are assumed documented. However, lacks clarity on whether the update is full replace or partial, and no mention of success behavior or rollback.

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?

With 83% schema coverage, baseline is 3. Description adds meaning for target_ml (1-5) and csf_tier (1-4) ranges, and the clear_* flags. However, it does not explain the server_version parameter, which lacks description in the schema.

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 starts with 'Set per-organization level grades for IEC 62443-4-1 and NIST CSF', clearly stating the verb and resource. This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which perform a similar update.

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?

Explicitly states admin-only requirement with a 403 warning, and explains the clear_* flags for resetting values. Lacks reference to alternative tools, but the tool's purpose is distinct enough that no alternative is obvious.

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