Archive an organization

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description goes well beyond them: it details exactly what is destroyed or affected, that subscription cancellation is deferred to the end of the billing period, the required permissions ('organization:manage' and the owner role), and the mandatory confirmation-token flow. This is rich behavioral context that the annotations alone do not 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?

Three dense but purposeful sentences, front-loaded with the operation's effects before stating the confirmation and permission requirements. Each sentence earns its place, though the middle confirmation-flow sentence is long and could be marginally tightened.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the effect list, auth requirements, and confirmation workflow an agent needs to invoke it safely. The only residual gap is not clarifying organizationId semantics, which is minor given the parameter is self-evident.

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 33% – only requestId is documented in the schema. The description compensates well for confirmationToken by explaining how to obtain it (via preview_operation) and its gating role, but it says nothing about organizationId beyond the obvious. The description adds partial meaning over the schema but does not fully close the coverage gap.

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 ('Archive an organization') and then enumerates the concrete downstream effects (projects archived and stop being checked, invitations cancelled, subscription cancelled at period end). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like archive_project, restore_organization, and update_organization.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the required workflow: call preview_operation first with these arguments, show the returned plan to the user, and only call this tool after explicit user agreement. It names the alternative/prerequisite tool and states the conditions for invocation, leaving nothing to inference.

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