aap_update_organization

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

Annotations already indicate it is mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds PATCH semantics (only provided fields updated) and return format, which is valuable contextual information beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the purpose, then stating PATCH behavior, followed by an args list and return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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 purpose, behavior, parameters, and return value. Annotations provide safety context. It lacks explicit mention of permissions or error conditions, but for a non-destructive, idempotent update tool, this is sufficient.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section explains each parameter (org_id, name, description, max_hosts) with meaningful semantics. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Update an existing AAP organization,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create/delete/get/list organizations.

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 clearly implies usage when modifying an existing organization and explains PATCH semantics, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear, so it earns a 4.

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