update_organization_settings

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds a genuinely new behavioral fact: the caller's OAuth token is required. It also bounds the blast radius by stating what the tool will not change. It does not describe the response or partial-application behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then sibling routing, then scope exclusions, then auth. No sentence is filler and nothing is buried.

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 non-destructive, idempotent mutation with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers action, auth, and scope limits. The only missing piece an agent might want is return/confirmation behavior, which is minor given the annotations.

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%: the features array, its name/enabled sub-fields, and the environmentId/organizationId formats are all documented in the schema. The description only echoes the toggling intent and repeats the dir_sync example, adding little semantics beyond the structured fields, 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: turning named features on/off for one organization, with a concrete example (directory sync). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_organization_details and from out-of-scope operations (rename, add users), so an agent can pick it correctly from the sibling list.

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?

It routes reads to get_organization_details and rules out renaming and user-adding, which is real when/when-not guidance. It stops short of naming which sibling handles those excluded operations, so the agent must infer the alternative for rename/add-user cases.

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