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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is known from structured data. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that unpassed fields are left untouched — plus the underlying endpoint. It still says nothing about permissions, reversibility of overwritten values, or validation/error behavior, which matters for a write 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?

Two compact sentences plus an endpoint reference, front-loaded with the field list and the partial-update rule. No filler, though the trailing API path is mildly redundant for an agent that keys off tool name.

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 7-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers purpose, scope of change, and partial-update semantics. No output schema exists so returns need not be described; only auth/permission and failure behavior are unaddressed.

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 7 documented parameters, so baseline is 3. The description restates the same field set the schema already documents (tags -> tag_list, default discount -> discount_percentage) without adding format, constraint, or interaction details.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (customer) and enumerates the mutable fields (name, email, legal type, tags, default discount, marketing consent). It is clearly distinguishable from booqable_create_customer and booqable_get_customer on verb alone, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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?

'Only the fields you pass change' communicates partial-update semantics, which is genuine usage guidance for calling it correctly. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over siblings (e.g. create vs update), no prerequisites, and no exclusion guidance.

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