Update existing Zendesk organization details, including name, tags, notes, and domain names, to keep customer records accurate and current.
Update an existing organization
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Organization ID to update | |
| name | No | Updated organization name | |
| tags | No | Updated tags | |
| notes | No | Updated notes | |
| details | No | Updated details | |
| domain_names | No | Updated domain names |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate the key safety traits: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb, and it never states whether omitted fields are left untouched or reset, but it does not contradict the annotations.
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 active sentence with no wasted words and is easy to parse. However, it is nearly identical to the tool name and contributes little informational content, making it concise but under-specified.
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?
The description leaves important update semantics unexplained, especially whether omitted fields are preserved or overwritten. There is no output schema, so the agent also cannot infer what the tool returns, and the description does not clarify behavior for a tool marked destructiveHint=true.
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?
All six parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description adds no additional semantic explanation beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 gives a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('existing organization'), so the agent can identify this as the modification operation for organizations. It distinguishes itself at a basic level from create/get/delete operations on the same resource, though it does not mention which fields are updatable.
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?
The word 'existing' and the verb 'update' imply this tool should be used for modifying an already-created organization, not for creating, reading, or deleting one. No explicit alternatives or when-not conditions are named, so usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.