Create a new Zendesk organization by specifying its name, tags, notes, details, and domain names for structured customer management.
Create a new organization
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Organization name | |
| tags | No | Tags for the organization | |
| notes | No | Notes about the organization | |
| details | No | Details about the organization | |
| domain_names | No | Domain names for the organization |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the write behavior is already known; the description adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects, uniqueness requirements, default values, or what happens on success or failure. It simply restates the operation without enriching the annotation-derived understanding.
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 short sentence with no wasted words and is easy to parse. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices useful context by being extremely minimal.
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 a create operation with five parameters and no output schema, the description provides only the bare minimum. It does not explain expected return behavior, validation rules, relationship to existing organizations, or any uniqueness constraints. The schema covers parameter formats, but the behavioral context needed for confident invocation is largely absent.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for parameters, so the schema already explains name, tags, notes, details, and domain_names. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 verb and resource: 'Create a new organization.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_ticket and create_user by naming the organization resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with update_organization or other CRUD siblings.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when create_organization should be chosen over update_organization, nor any prerequisites or context for creating an organization.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.