Modify an existing KikoBooks customer by providing the customer ID and fields to change, including name, email, phone, company, currency, or billing address.
Update an existing customer in KikoBooks. Provide the customer ID and the fields to update.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer | Yes | ||
| customer_id | Yes | The Customer ID to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether this is a partial or full-replacement update, what happens to fields omitted from the customer object, whether the caller needs particular permissions, or whether the change is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the verb/resource statement is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the second sentence is close to restating the schema rather than earning its place.
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 no annotations, no output schema, a nested object parameter, and only 50% schema description coverage, the definition leaves too much unspecified. An agent cannot tell whether the update is partial or complete, what the response will be, or what errors to expect.
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?
The description merely restates the schema ('provide the customer ID and the fields to update'), adding no meaning about update semantics such as whether unspecified fields are preserved. With only 50% schema description coverage in the nested customer object (termsCode, currencyCode and the billing address fields are undocumented), the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 and resource ('Update an existing customer in KikoBooks'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from search_customers, get_customer, create_customer, and delete_customer. It does not, however, do anything to set it apart from the other update_* siblings (update_vendor, update_account) beyond the resource name.
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 second sentence gives input instructions ('Provide the customer ID and the fields to update'), not usage guidance. There is no statement of when this tool is appropriate versus update_vendor/update_account, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or warnings about the operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.