create_organization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the tool requires the caller OAuth token, and it only creates the organization shell, not its users. It does not state duplicate-name behavior or effects of repeated calls, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (action, sibling for listing, scope boundary, sibling for users, auth requirement), with the core action front-loaded first.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, prerequisites (OAuth token), and sequencing with the sibling user-creation tool. It omits what the call returns and how name collisions are handled, which would be the remaining useful detail.

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 only two required parameters, both fully documented in the schema (environmentId format and organizationName). The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create one organization in an environment') and immediately bounds the scope by declaring what it does not do (create users). An agent can distinguish it from create_organization_user and list_organizations without inspecting any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use list_organizations to check existing orgs, and use create_organization_user afterward for users. Both a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use (user creation) condition are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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