Rename organisation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the permission requirement and that it only changes the display name, but it does not disclose response format, error conditions (e.g., name collision, invalid org), or side effects beyond the name change. With annotations covering the basic behavior, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, and the permission constraint is stated immediately after. Every word carries meaning and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 is complete for a simple rename operation with a fully documented 2-parameter schema and annotations covering the safety profile. However, it does not mention the return value, idempotency consequences (annotations say idempotentHint=false), or failure modes (e.g., what happens if the org doesn't exist or the caller lacks OWNER). For a mutating tool, those details would help an agent anticipate errors, but the schema and annotations already carry the core context.

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% and both parameters are individually documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one meaningful semantic detail: it clarifies that 'name' is the display name specifically, and it implies that the 'org' parameter accepts id/slug/name as identifiers (though this is already in the schema). The description doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema, but the schema itself is strong. A 4 is appropriate because the description reinforces the display-name semantics.

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 uses a specific verb+object construction ('Change an organisation's display name') and clearly distinguishes this from rename_project and other rename operations in the sibling list. It also names the exact resource (organisation) and the scope of the change (display name). An agent can select this tool 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?

The description states the permission prerequisite ('Requires the OWNER role in it'), which is important usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., use rename_project for projects, or create_org/set_org_catalog for other org changes). The sibling list makes those alternatives inferable, but the description itself stops short of naming them.

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