update-organization

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by naming the HTTP method and required scope 'sales:write', but it does not explain update semantics, whether omitted fields are overwritten, idempotency, or what the response contains.

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 succinct sentence with no filler. The core operation, endpoint, and auth scope are all front-loaded and each piece of information 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It covers operation and scope but leaves out update behavior, parameter semantics, return value, and when to use the tool. An agent could call it but may not invoke it correctly for partial vs full updates.

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 only 25%, so the description needed to compensate for the undocumented name, email, and phone parameters. It does not mention them at all; it only indirectly identifies id via the URL path placeholder. This is minimal added meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a sales organization', and reinforces it with the exact PUT endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get-organization, list-organizations, and create-organization.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create-organization for new records or get-organization for reads. The only usage signal is the verb 'update', which implies an existing organization but is not explicit.

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