update_organization

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that only provided fields are modified (partial update), that passing null clears certain fields, and that the description field supports multi-line plain text. This aligns with annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) and provides clear expectations for the agent.

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 (4 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value: identification method, partial update, null clearing, and description usage. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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's complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It covers identification, partial update, field clearing, and description usage. It could mention error handling (e.g., when identifier not found) but this is not critical. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating partial update semantics and confirming the null-clearing behavior, which reinforces and clarifies the schema. It also provides identification nuance that is not fully captured in the schema.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'organization', and it distinguishes this tool from other update tools (e.g., create_organization, update_organization_channel) by specifying the action on the organization entity itself. It also adds identification methods, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: it is for updating existing organizations by ID or unique name. It also advises that if multiple organizations share the same name, the ID should be used. No explicit when-not or alternative tools are mentioned, but the context is sufficient for appropriate use.

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