Update Organization

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (partial updates allowed), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds that it updates specific fields (name, description, image), which complements the annotations by specifying scope. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, efficiently lists fields without redundancy. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, with no wasted text.

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?

For a mutation tool with rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency) and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks output information (no output schema provided) and doesn't address error cases or side effects. Given the context, it meets basic needs but could be more informative about behavioral nuances.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Resource ID', 'New name'). The description lists the updatable fields (name, description, image), which aligns with schema but doesn't add significant semantic context beyond what's already documented in the schema properties.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('organization') with specific fields (name, description, image). It distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_create_organization' (create vs update) and 'dual_get_organization' (read vs update), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'dual_update_object' or 'dual_update_template'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing organization_id), when not to use it, or compare with similar tools like 'dual_update_object' for organization updates. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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