update_organization

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'partial-update' (indicating only provided fields change) and 'domain is immutable', adding transparency. It also clarifies the nature of organizationId. While it does not detail side effects like permission requirements or response format, it provides meaningful context beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the action, target fields, and the critical constraint about domain immutability. Every clause earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a patch operation with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: partial update behavior, immutable fields, and ID provenance. It relies on the schema for doNotContact semantics. It does not mention error cases or authorization, but those are less critical given the concise and clear description.

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?

The description adds value by explaining that organizationId is the primary key from specific list endpoints, not a domain, and by enumerating the updateable fields. Since schema coverage is 50% (only patch and doNotContact have descriptions), the description compensates for missing details on name, websiteUrl, and employeeBand, though it does not elaborate on their constraints beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool performs a partial update on an organization, listing specific mutable fields (name, website URL, employeeBand, doNotContact) and noting that domain is immutable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_organization or delete_organizations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies when to use the tool (to modify an organization's mutable fields) and explicitly notes that domain cannot be changed. It also clarifies that organizationId is the PK from specific list methods, not a domain, which prevents common misuse. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other update tools or state prerequisites beyond the ID source.

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