passgage_create_organization_unit

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new organization_unit', which merely repeats the tool name. It does not mention side effects, required data fields, authentication needs, or response behavior, making it inadequate for an agent to anticipate consequences.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and concise, earning a perfect score for brevity and structure.

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?

This tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description fails to explain what an organization_unit is, what data structure is expected in the 'data' object, or what response to expect. For a create operation with an open-ended object parameter, the description is critically incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% because the sole 'data' parameter has a description, though it is generic ('The data for creating the organization_unit'). The tool description adds no further parameter guidance, so baseline 3 is appropriate. However, the schema's additionalProperties:true and lack of field details mean the description could have compensated but did not.

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 'Create a new organization_unit' uses a specific verb (Create) and a clear resource (organization_unit), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update, get, delete, and list. It directly states the tool's primary action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It is not misleading, but it offers zero context for selection or invocation.

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