seed_update_org

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that update access is required, but gives no information about side effects (e.g., what fields are overwritten), error behavior (e.g., if org not found), or the fact that sensitive financial fields are accepted. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the permission prerequisite.

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 concise, with two short sentences that front-load the purpose. There is no unnecessary fluff, but it is too terse to fully serve the tool's purpose. Nonetheless, for what it contains, it is well-structured.

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 the tool has 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the update returns, how missing fields are handled, or that sensitive payment card information is involved. It is barely sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 20%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'name' is the organization name key, but the other 14 parameters (including financial card details) are left entirely unexplained. The description adds little semantic meaning beyond the schema's sparse descriptions.

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 updates Seed organization metadata, using a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Seed organization'). It also mentions the lookup key ('organization name'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like seed_create_org, seed_delete_org, and other update_* 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?

The description implies usage for updating existing org metadata but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only notes a permission requirement, not when to invoke the tool or when not to.

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