gam_admin_update_ou

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly states the primary actions (move/re-parent) but fails to mention the dryRun parameter's default behavior, required permissions, reversal possibility, or side effects. The transparency is adequate for basic understanding but lacks depth expected 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 extremely concise—two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with a critical usage note. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is easy to parse quickly.

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 5 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a minimal but functional overview. It lacks details about return values, error conditions, dry run validation, or the difference between moving a user and re-parenting an OU. Adequate for basic understanding but leaves gaps for an agent needing full context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., targetType requirement). It merely reiterates a requirement already present in the schema; no additional value.

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 tool does two specific operations: moves a user to a different OU or re-parents an OU. It uses specific verbs ('Moves', 're-parents') and resources ('user', 'OU'), making it distinct from sibling tools which handle user creation, group management, or file operations.

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 a clear requirement ('caller MUST set targetType explicitly'), which guides correct usage. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the sibling tools are sufficiently different to imply this is the correct tool for OU moves. Lacks explicit exclusions but is adequate for correct selection.

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