create_org

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes a create operation (write) and hints at billing workflow, but omits key details like idempotency, duplicate name handling, or authentication requirements. The plan enumeration adds some value but is not exhaustive.

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 focused sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides follow-up actions and plan details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., organization ID or object), nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication. While it effectively sets context for post-creation steps, it leaves gaps in expected output and preconditions for a create operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (name, slug). The description does not add semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation without exceeding it.

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's action: 'Create a new Cachly organization for team collaboration.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by outlining subsequent steps (invite_member, billing portal) and detailing org plans.

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 provides explicit context for use: creation followed by inviting members and upgrading plans. It references a sibling tool (invite_member) for the next step, offering clear workflow guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives.

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