Build organisation (async)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses async behavior, 202 response, and background execution (minutes). It also mentions project auto-creation. However, it does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 three sentences long, with the main action in the first sentence. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core async workflow and a key option (projectId). However, with 7 parameters and no output schema, it leaves many parameters (ref_org_id, target_systems, web_search, locale_language) unexplained, making the tool less complete for first-time users.

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 description coverage is 71%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds nuance for projectId (omit to auto-create) and mentions projectName is optional. This adds value but does not fully compensate for the remaining parameters without documentation.

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 'Start building' and the resource 'synthetic organisation from a prompt'. It also mentions returning a 202 status with orgId, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'build_zip' or 'create_project'.

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 explains when to use the tool (building an organisation from a prompt) and gives guidance on polling or using wait_for_org. It also advises on projectId: omit to auto-create. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use.

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