kaiten_update_sd_org_user

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. It only says 'Update a user's permissions' and does not mention effects, reversibility, required authorization, or what happens when the optional permissions parameter is omitted. The mutation nature is implicit but not elaborated.

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 clear sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and object, though it is quite minimal and does not include any routing or cautionary context.

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?

Given there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin for a mutation tool. It identifies the resource but omits practical context such as permission value semantics, whether permissions is required for a meaningful update, and how this relates to SD organization membership tools. An agent would likely need external knowledge to invoke it confidently.

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 three parameters (user_id, permissions, organization_id). The description adds some context by framing the operation as updating permissions in a Service Desk organization, but it does not meaningfully expand on the meaning of the permission bitmask or the optionality of the permissions parameter.

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 states a clear action ('Update') on a specific resource ('a user's permissions in a Service Desk organization'), so an agent can understand what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like kaiten_add_sd_org_user or kaiten_update_sd_user, but the 'permissions in a Service Desk organization' phrasing provides reasonable specificity.

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 given about when to use this tool versus related tools such as kaiten_add_sd_org_user, kaiten_remove_sd_org_user, or kaiten_update_sd_user. The wording implies it is for modifying permissions rather than membership, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative-selection guidance.

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