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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with 'it overwrites the current value' and reveals the underlying PUT endpoint, but adds nothing about permissions, error behavior, or return values beyond what annotations imply.

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?

A single compact sentence with 'WRITE:' front-loaded to signal the mutation immediately. The attribute enumeration partly repeats the schema enum, which is minor waste but keeps the definition short overall.

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?

With three fully documented required parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema required, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it. The only mild gap is expected error or permission behavior for a destructive single-field write.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the gender codes and the empty-string-clears rule. The description's attribute list largely duplicates the schema enum; the gender value mapping is a small helpful addition but not compensating for any gap.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('WRITE: change ONE attribute') plus the resource ('customer') and even enumerates the addressable attributes. It is clearly distinguishable from hiboutik_create_customer and hiboutik_get_customer by the single-attribute mutation scope.

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 'change ONE attribute' framing and the overwrite warning give clear usage context for picking this over create_customer or a broader update. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or a when-not condition, so it lands just below the top.

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