create_organizational_unit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It says the tool creates an OU with attributes and management settings, but omits permissions required, whether parent_ou must already exist, duplicate-name behavior, reversibility, and response details.

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 front-loaded and the example is useful. There is minor redundancy between 'Create a new Organizational Unit' and 'Creates OU with specified attributes and management settings', but it remains compact.

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 schema is complete for parameters and the example helps with parent_ou formatting. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves material gaps around prerequisites, failure modes, permissions, and sibling selection.

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 five parameters. The example usefully illustrates DN syntax for parent_ou, but managed_by and additional_attributes receive no extra explanation in the description.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Organizational Unit', and adds that it establishes OU hierarchy. It distinguishes itself implicitly from modify/delete/move OU siblings, but does not name alternatives explicitly.

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 example shows a typical call with name, parent_ou, and description, implying usage. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not conditions, and no alternatives such as modify_organizational_unit or move_organizational_unit.

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