update_org_unit_custom_property

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. It states it is an update operation and a constraint on propertyType, but does not disclose side effects, validation behavior, or any error conditions. With destructiveness false and openWorldHint true, more detail on permissible mutations would be helpful.

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?

Two sentences: first clearly states purpose, second adds critical constraint. No unnecessary words. Well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Adequate for a straightforward update operation. However, since there is no output schema, the description could mention what the response contains. Also lacks details on validation of propertyType or enumerated values. Sufficient but not rich.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so each parameter is already described. The description adds the constraint that propertyType must match the property definition, which is useful but not critical. No additional explanation for relationship between parameters or handling of enumeratedValueList.

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 action (update) and the resource (custom property on organization unit), and specifies the types of org units (SO, customer, site). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_org_unit_property' or 'list_org_custom_properties'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_org_custom_property_default' or 'update_device_custom_property'. The only usage hint is the requirement that propertyType must match the property definition, but no context for selection.

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