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

Beyond the annotations (which already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the crucial semantic that omitted fields are preserved while 'notes REPLACES the existing notes' – exactly the destructive behavior an agent needs to know. It adds no permission/auth or rate-limit detail, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Three compact clauses with the write nature front-loaded, the patch semantics second, and the endpoint last. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, but annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers mutation scope, replacement behavior, and the underlying endpoint. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, though a note on response or error behavior would round it out.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value by framing all five parameters as an optional partial patch where unlisted fields remain unchanged – context the per-field schema descriptions do not convey.

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 names a specific verb ('change'), the exact resource ('customer in Safefood 360'), and enumerates the mutable fields (name, phone, mobile, notes). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling read tools like safefood360_get_customer and from the update_document sibling.

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 'WRITE:' prefix plus 'JSON patch of those fields; others stay as they are' makes the partial-update use case explicit. It doesn't name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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