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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent write behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value: duplicate my_id causes a hard failure with no creation, and the endpoint is POST /customer/send. It does not describe permissions or what the response contains.

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 tightly packed sentences: the WRITE prefix, the required-input note, the failure/alternative rule, and the endpoint. Nothing is filler and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the primary required input and one important failure mode, but omits permissions, response shape, and the meaning of the many contact/* fields. Adequate but visibly thin against the schema's surface area.

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?

Only name, address and my_id get any mention, and the claim that 'an address are required' conflicts with the schema where address is optional and only name is required. With 40% schema coverage and 10 parameters, the description leaves most optional fields (vat_number, contact_*) undocumented anywhere.

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+resource ('create a new customer') and prefixes it with 'WRITE:' to make the mutation nature unmistakable, which cleanly distinguishes it from get_customer/list_customers/update_customer siblings. The required inputs are named up front.

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?

It gives a concrete routing rule for the my_id collision case: nothing is created, an error returns, and the agent should use synchroteam_update_customer. It stops short of stating when to create a customer versus other entity types (site/depot), but for this tool family that's inferable.

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