Create IT Glue Organization

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds valuable context by specifying the return value ('The created organization with its new ID'), which helps the agent understand the outcome. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return value sections. It's appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool, though the parameter listing could be considered redundant given the comprehensive schema.

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 creation tool with good annotations (readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true) and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains the action and return value, though it could benefit from mentioning potential constraints or error conditions. The lack of output schema is partially compensated by the return value 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description lists parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining what organization_type_id values mean or how alerts are used). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Create a new organization') and resource ('in IT Glue'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'itglue_update_organization' or 'itglue_list_organizations'. It precisely identifies the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 context (creating new organizations) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'itglue_update_organization' or 'itglue_list_organizations'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, dependencies, or exclusion scenarios.

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