update-organization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'update an existing organization' without explaining update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full replacement, handling of omitted fields, idempotency, or required permissions). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence that is front-loaded and contains zero fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple update operation, though it could have been more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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's moderate complexity (6 parameters, nested attributes, required realm and orgId) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is too terse. It does not mention the required identifiers, the scope of updates, or the return behavior. While the schema covers parameter syntax, the operational context is incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool safely and correctly.

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 all six parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting. No compensation is needed, but also no extra value is 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 'Update an existing organization' uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('organization'), clearly distinguishing it from create/delete/list/get operations on organizations. It is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 implies usage for modifying existing organizations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create-organization or update-realm. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned, so guidance is merely implied by the tool name and description.

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