Updating organization settings

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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds minimal value by noting the required permission, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like consequences of the update or whether changes are reversible.

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 consists of three concise sentences, each adding distinct information: action, operation details, and permission requirement. No redundancy or unnecessary text.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated in context), the description covers the core operation and required permission. It could mention the destructive nature or confirm parameter implications, but overall sufficient for a straightforward update 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 100%, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, achieving the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Updating') and the resource ('organization settings'), with a specific reference to updating by ID. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like create or delete, which is acceptable given the tool name.

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 only provides the required permission ('Perm: manage_organizations') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_organization or update_setting). The schema includes a dry_run parameter and required confirm, but the description does not explain their usage context.

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