identity_patch_org

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description adds genuinely new context: the endpoint is deprecated, only displayName changes are currently honored, and access is restricted to Platform operators and Organization Owners. That permission and scope detail goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 deprecation warning is correctly front-loaded, but the markdown access table with escaped entities (✔️, ❌) is noisy and partially malformed, consuming space that could have carried a plain 'requires Platform operator or Org Owner role' sentence.

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 deprecated single-field mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what changes, what is allowed, who may call it, and where to go instead. Return behavior is not described, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 would be 3, but the note 'we only allow for displayName change' is critical semantics the schema cannot express — the body accepts id, name, refLink, metadata and parentRefLink, yet those are effectively inert. This prevents an agent from wasting a call setting fields that will be ignored.

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 and resource ('Update organization details') and pins it to the exact endpoint PATCH /csp/gateway/am/api/orgs/{orgId}, so an agent knows precisely what it does. It doesn't explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like provider_update_org, but the deprecation banner and path make the target 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 [DEPRECATED] marker plus 'Use this API instead: /cloudapi/1.0.0/orgs' gives a clear when-not-to-use signal, and the access table states who is permitted. It falls short of 5 because the recommended alternative is a raw REST path rather than a sibling tool the agent could actually call, leaving the practical routing decision implicit.

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