Create Organization

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('Returns the org with its ID and FQDN'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like error conditions, rate limits, or permission requirements, 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 extremely concise—just one sentence that efficiently states the action, resource, and return value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (a creation operation with 4 parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return format but lacks details on error handling, side effects, or integration with sibling tools. The annotations help, but more context would improve completeness for a mutation 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for 'fqdn' or constraints for 'image'. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Create' and the resource 'new organization (multi-tenant workspace)', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'dual_update_organization' and 'dual_get_organization' by focusing on creation rather than modification or retrieval.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'dual_list_organizations' or 'dual_update_organization'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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