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

The description goes beyond annotations by warning that changing customerId immediately affects which rows the customer sees and instructs the agent to confirm with the user. This is valuable behavioral context not present in structured 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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The critical warning about customerId is front-loaded and directly actionable.

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 simple update tool, the description is sufficient: it identifies the two mutable fields, emphasizes the consequence of one, and mentions a required confirmation. Missing details like return value are not critical since there is no output schema.

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 high, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds light context for name and customerId but does not significantly expand beyond the schema's own 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Rename a customer or correct the customerId'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling update tools by naming the exact mutable fields.

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 when to use the tool: when renaming or correcting a customer identity. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools such as add_customer or delete_customer, or state when not to use it.

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