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

Annotations already disclose that this is a destructive, idempotent write operation. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: only supplied fields are sent, and those values overwrite stored values, which clarifies partial-update semantics.

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 three compact sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the operation type and essential mutation semantics.

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 13-parameter mutation with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description covers the core update behavior, overwrite semantics, and endpoint. It still omits how to clear fields, validation or error behavior, permission requirements, and most parameter meanings.

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?

There are 13 parameters but only 31% schema description coverage, and the description provides no field-level guidance. The sentence 'only the fields you pass are sent' helps explain optionality generally, but it does not compensate for undocumented parameters such as first_name, last_name, phone, address, and others.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'change fields of an existing customer.' The word 'existing' distinguishes it from bsale_create_client, and the PUT endpoint reinforces that this is an update operation.

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 it by saying 'change fields of an existing customer,' and the partial-update note is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over bsale_create_client or how to handle missing fields.

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