ClockNext: create customer

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

The description discloses that the tool returns the customer with its ClockNext id, clarifies that only name and email are required while all other fields are optional profile, and explains how the returned id is used downstream. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) without contradicting them.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no wasted text. It front-loads the core operation ('Create a ClockNext customer'), states required fields, and ends with the crucial downstream usage of the returned id. Every clause earns 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?

Despite 16 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what a customer is, required vs optional fields, and the return value's role in subsequent operations. It could have detailed the response structure further, but the description is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 groups all non-required fields as 'optional profile,' providing some semantic context, but does not elaborate beyond what the schema already states. With schema coverage at only 38%, this grouping partially compensates, but individual parameters like city, phone, and taxId are left to their self-explanatory names. It adds minimal value over the schema's required/optional distinctions.

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 clearly states the tool creates a ClockNext customer and defines it as the billing entity mapping to end-users/tenants/organizations. This specific verb+resource pairing, along with the billing context, distinguishes it from sibling tools like clocknext_list_customers or clocknext_bulk_import_customers.

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 explains that the created customer's id is required for subscribing to a plan (clocknext_create_purchase) and recording usage (clocknext_record_usage), clearly implying when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the creation verb and downstream references provide clear usage context.

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