orgs_write

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotency. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by stating delete removes the org and associated clients, which is the key side effect an agent needs before calling 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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then actions and read alternative, then destructive impact. Nothing is repeated unnecessarily and every sentence adds useful routing or safety information.

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 write tool with a large nested org object, the description pairs well with high schema coverage and covers action selection, read routing, and delete impact. It does not discuss permissions or response behavior, but annotations and schema carry most remaining burden.

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 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters, including the nested org fields and action-specific parameters. The description enumerates actions and mentions assign/unassign but does not add semantics beyond the schema for org, orgId, agentId, or assignAction.

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 names specific verbs and resources: create/update/delete organizations and assign/unassign an agent. It also explicitly distinguishes reads by pointing to the sibling orgs_read, so an agent can tell this tool apart from the read path without opening schemas.

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 clearly says to use orgs_read for reads and warns that delete is destructive. It does not spell out when to choose create vs update beyond the action names, but the action enum and schema fields make the intended usage clear.

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