Update Customer

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the updated customer is returned; it is silent on partial-update semantics, required permissions, validation failures, and whether unspecified fields are preserved.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first line. The Args listing duplicates schema content and could be trimmed, but there is no padding or filler prose.

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 a free-form nested body object and no output schema, the description should clarify allowed fields and response shape. The single line about returning the updated customer is not enough for an agent to construct a correct body confidently.

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 the schema already documents both parameters, and the Args block merely restates it. The body is a free-form nested object with no enumerable field list, and the description offers nothing about which customer fields are updatable, which is a meaningful gap left entirely to inference.

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 a customer by id'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from read siblings like ashar_get_customer or ashar_list_customers. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus ashar_create_customer, ashar_delete_customer, or the various customer sub-resource tools. No prerequisites, permissions, or exclusions are mentioned.

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