update_organization_affiliation

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., required permissions, side effects, or what happens to existing data). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence, making it concise. However, it is too brief to be maximally informative; it could include more detail without being verbose. Score reflects this balance.

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 complexity of the tool (update operation with required and optional fields) and the lack of an output schema, the description does not explain return values or side effects. It relies heavily on the input schema and annotations, leaving gaps for the agent.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate but not enhanced. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 affiliation record). It directly conveys the action, but it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_affiliation' or 'create_organization_affiliation'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many update tools and an 'update_affiliation' sibling, but no context for selection. It also lacks prerequisites or constraints.

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