Update Partner Organization

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it updates name or mailbox allocation, which is consistent. However, no additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, auth needs) are disclosed beyond what annotations provide, making the description adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence of 9 words, front-loading the verb 'Update' and specifying the resource. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 has an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential purpose and fields. However, it could mention that the update is partial (only provided fields are changed), though this is implicit from the description's wording.

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 50%, the description compensates by naming the updateable fields ('name or mailbox allocation'), which correspond to the two parameters without schema descriptions. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though further details (e.g., constraints on name length) are not provided.

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 'Update' and the resource 'operator organization,' listing the updatable fields ('name or mailbox allocation'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, list, suspend, resume, and offboard, which have different purposes.

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 clear context that this tool is for updating an existing partner organization. Although it does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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