modify_organizational_unit

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only discloses one behavioral fact (error when the OU is not found). It never says whether the attributes dictionary is a merge or a full replace, what happens to keys omitted from the call, whether unknown attribute names are rejected, or what permissions are required for a directory mutation.

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 purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the example is compact and directly usable. The opening two sentences restate each other slightly ('Modify OU attributes and properties' / 'Updates OU information including...'), which is minor redundancy but not bloat.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a free-form nested object parameter, the description covers purpose, an example, and the not-found failure mode. It stops short on the things an agent most needs before writing: merge-vs-replace semantics, validation of attribute names, and permission requirements.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further: the example shows the DN string format for ou_dn and demonstrates that attributes is a name-to-value mapping, and it names concrete accepted keys (description, managed by, location). The word 'including' leaves the full key set open, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (modify) and resource (OU attributes/properties), which clearly separates it from siblings like move_organizational_unit, delete_organizational_unit, and create_organizational_unit. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is implicit in the verb rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the worked example shows the intended shape of a call and the final line notes the not-found error case, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over move_organizational_unit or modify_group/modify_user analogues. An agent can infer context but is given no exclusions or prerequisites.

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