Create Partner Organization

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds that an ownership invitation email is sent and that no domain or mailbox is created. This provides valuable context about side effects and constraints, though it omits details like required permissions or rate limits.

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: one sentence for the primary action and one clarifying sentence. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, and every word adds value.

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 covers the core action and a key behavioral note, but given the tool has 6 parameters and a potentially complex creation process, it does not address error conditions, idempotency specifics (though hinted), or the response format. An output schema exists, which reduces the need to describe return values, but more context would improve agent decision-making.

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 schema description coverage at only 17% (only idempotency_key has a description), the description adds no explanation for the other 5 parameters such as name, owner_email, external_reference, mailbox_limit, or data_classification. The tool's description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Create an operator organization and email its ownership invitation.' The verb 'create' and the specific resource 'operator organization' are unambiguous, and the additional note 'No domain or mailbox is created' distinguishes it from sibling tools that create domains or mailboxes.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like shipmail_create_domain or shipmail_create_mailbox. It lacks any when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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