create_organization

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior such as defaulting name/websiteUrl from the domain and CONFLICT handling on duplicate, which is valuable. It could also clearly state that this is a write operation, but the mutation is strongly implied by 'register' and 'CONFLICT'.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds useful behavioral or contextual detail. No wasted words.

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 covers purpose, when to use, conflict handling, and default behavior for common parameters. For a create tool with no output schema, it is largely complete, though it could mention what the create action returns on success if that matters for follow-up calls.

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 only 25% (only domain is documented in the schema), but the description clarifies the semantics of the 'name' and 'websiteUrl' parameters (default from domain) and illustrates the 'doNotContact' use case. It does not explicitly describe the doNotContact parameter, but the schema has a default.

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 ('Register an organization') with a clear resource and method ('by domain alone'). The example of flagging a company and the explicit pointer to update_organization for existing domains distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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?

It provides an explicit use case ('before any prospect exists') and explicitly says 'CONFLICT if the domain already exists (use update_organization)', which tells the agent when to choose a different tool.

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