provider_update_org

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, readOnly=false), the description adds real value: updating managedBy makes the call asynchronous and returns a task via the location header, otherwise it is synchronous. That distinction is not derivable from the annotations or schema. It stops short of explaining PUT replace semantics or required permissions.

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 opening sentence 'Updates an organization.' is immediately duplicated verbatim, wasting space before the useful async/sync distinction. The rest is tight and appropriately front-loaded with the behavioral nuance and endpoint path.

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 2-parameter mutation with fully documented schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential unknown — that the call may return a task instead of completing synchronously. No output schema exists to explain, and the endpoint path is included, so an agent has what it needs.

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 is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the managedBy field is the one that switches the call to asynchronous mode. No guidance is given on whether the body fully replaces the existing org (PUT) versus partially updating it, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Updates an organization') and the HTTP endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as provider_update_org_settings or provider_update_org_ldap_settings, which would require a sentence about which org aspects this endpoint covers.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus provider_update_org_settings, provider_update_org_ldap_settings, or identity_patch_org. The conditional sentence explains a behavioral consequence of one field, not when the tool should be selected, so usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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