update_organization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation but the description doesn't state whether partial updates are supported, what happens to unspecified fields, whether there are access/permission requirements, or what the response format is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately minimal, though it could be argued it's under-specified rather than concise. However, for a simple update tool, this brevity is acceptable.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description provides minimal context. It doesn't mention partial-vs-full update behavior, required fields beyond the ID (which the schema doesn't specify as required either), or any side effects. Given six parameters and a mutation nature, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters clearly. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'Update an existing organization.' Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting and the description title accurately reflects the operation.

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 'Update an existing organization' uses a specific verb+resource combination that clearly indicates the mutation operation. However, it doesn't specify which fields can be updated or differentiate from sibling tools like update_person or update_list, though the resource name implicitly distinguishes it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_organization or delete_organization. No context about preconditions such as needing the organization to already exist or how to obtain the id. The description simply states the operation without usage context.

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