update_customer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies mutation, the description fails to specify whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared (PATCH vs PUT semantics), what the response indicates, or any permission requirements.

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?

Extremely brief at five words with no filler. However, given the tool has 9 parameters and no annotations, this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical behavioral context like partial update semantics, success indicators, and differentiation from related update siblings (update_vehicle, update_order, etc.).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score is 3. The description adds no specific guidance about parameters, such as noting that 'id' is the only required field for identification while others are optional updateable attributes.

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 clear verb ('Update') and resource ('customer's information'), and includes the word 'existing' which helps distinguish this tool from the sibling create_customer. However, it does not specify which fields can be updated, leaving that entirely to the schema.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus create_customer, nor does it clarify that this performs partial updates (only the 'id' is required). No mention of prerequisites like customer existence checks.

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