passgage_update_organization_unit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update an existing organization_unit', which reveals it's a mutation but nothing about partial vs. full replacement, error handling, idempotency, return value, or side effects. 'Existing' implies a prerequisite of an ID, but no further transparency.

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, concise sentence that states the purpose without filler. It earns its place, but the structure is minimal—no sections or additional context. It's appropriately brief, though not exceptionally structured.

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 tool is relatively simple (id + free-form data object), but the description omits crucial context. It does not clarify whether the update is partial or full replacement, what fields are expected in the data object, what the tool returns, or potential errors. Given no output schema and no annotations, this is incomplete for an agent to use 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?

The input schema includes descriptions for both parameters (id as UUID, data as the update payload), giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update' and the resource 'organization_unit', making it obvious this tool modifies an existing organization unit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'passgage_create_organization_unit' and 'passgage_delete_organization_unit' via the verb.

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 implies usage: you need an existing organization unit to update. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over create/delete, nor any prerequisites or alternatives. The usage is inferred from the operation type.

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