Update an organization

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description goes further by disclosing partial-update semantics ('arguments left out are unchanged'), a mandatory confirmation-token workflow, and the authorization prerequisites. That is material behavioral context beyond what the structured fields 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 sentences, front-loaded with the mutation scope and the partial-update rule before the procedural requirements. The middle sentence is long but every clause (tool name, show plan, explicit agreement) is load-bearing, so little could be cut without losing safety-relevant instruction.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, this covers the essentials: scope, partial-update behavior, authorization, and the required two-step confirmation. Minor gaps remain (error behavior on an invalid or expired token, uniqueness rules for the new name), but nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With only 17% schema description coverage, the description carries most of the burden and does so well: it enumerates name/description/contactEmail, explains the omit-to-leave-unchanged semantics for all optional fields, and explains confirmationToken's role. organizationId is not otherwise explained, but its meaning is unambiguous from the name and schema type.

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 (Change) plus the exact resource and the three mutable fields (name, description, contactEmail), instantly distinguishing it from siblings like update_project, update_member, and update_competitor. An agent knows exactly what this tool alters without opening the schema.

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 when-to-use mechanics: preview_operation must be called first with tool "update_organization" and the same arguments, the plan shown to the user, and this tool invoked only after explicit user agreement. It also states the required permission (organization:manage) and role (owner), 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.