update_organization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is an update and that it returns a JSON string, but it does not disclose whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, what happens on invalid IDs, authentication needs, or other side effects beyond the basic mutation.

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 efficiently formatted with a clear purpose sentence, an Args block covering all six parameters, and a Returns line. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema type 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?

The description covers the operation, all parameters, and the return value, which is minimally viable. However, it lacks explicit update semantics for optional fields, does not mention that organization_type_id and organization_status_id likely come from list_organization_types/list_organization_statuses, and gives no usage guidance. These gaps make it adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a one-line meaning for every parameter, such as 'New organization name' and 'New organization type ID,' which adds value beyond the bare schema fields. It does not explain null-vs-omit semantics, but the schema's defaults partially cover that.

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 opening sentence, 'Update an existing organization in IT Glue,' clearly states the verb and resource, and the word 'existing' distinguishes this from sibling create_organization. The parameter list reinforces that it modifies fields on an existing org.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over create_organization, get_organization, or search_organizations. The only signal is the word 'Update,' which implies modification but does not explicitly address alternatives or prerequisites.

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