Create an organization

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, idempotent=false); the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the required permission (organization:manage), the owner role, the tenant-scope restriction, and the mandatory two-step confirmation workflow. Contradiction check: the false idempotentHint is consistent with the schema's opt-in requestId idempotency key, not a conflict.

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 sentences with no filler, ordered purpose/scope → gating workflow → authorization, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description could say what is returned (e.g., the new organization id) and could state that 'name' has no stated uniqueness/reserved-word constraints. Otherwise it covers permissions, scope, and the confirmation contract adequately for a 3-parameter creation tool.

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 only 33% (only requestId is documented), so the description has to carry weight — and it fully explains how confirmationToken is produced (via preview_operation) and why it is required. It leaves 'name' with no semantic guidance beyond the schema's maxLength, which is a residual 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 ('Create a new organization') and adds ownership scope ('owned by the caller'), which cleanly separates it from the other create_* siblings (create_project, create_competitor, create_clusters) and from update_/archive_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?

Gives explicit preconditions and the exact routing rule: only with a connection not limited to one organization, and it must be preceded by preview_operation with tool "create_organization" plus the same arguments, with user agreement obtained first. An agent knows precisely when this tool is callable and what to call before it.

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