kaiten_create_sd_organization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the mutation ('Create') and reveals nothing about permissions, uniqueness constraints, idempotency, or what the API returns on success/failure. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler words. Every element earns its place for a straightforward creation tool.

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 tool is low-complexity with complete schema coverage, but the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should convey more about expected behavior and results. It remains minimally adequate for an agent to select and invoke, though it omits return-value and failure details.

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%, and the input schema already documents the 'name' and 'description' parameters with max lengths. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Service Desk organization'), clearly distinguishing this creation tool from sibling get/update/delete/list organization tools. No ambiguity about what action is performed.

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 action 'Create a new Service Desk organization' implies when to use it, but the description provides no explicit guidance about prerequisites, constraints, or alternatives (e.g., using update_sd_organization for existing orgs). Usage context is only inferred from the verb and name.

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