pennylane_update_company_customer

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, covering the safety profile. The description usefully adds PATCH-style partial-update behavior (only supplied fields change), which isn't in the schema, but it omits other behavioral context like permission requirements or failure on an invalid id.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose and update semantics are front-loaded. Nothing wasteful.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose and partial-update behavior, leaving only minor gaps around permissions and error behavior, which is adequate for this tool's complexity.

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 every parameter (id, name, notes, phone, emails, reg_no, reference, vat_number) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3.

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 ('Modifie') and resource ('client entreprise existant'), and the qualifier 'entreprise' distinguishes it from the sibling pennylane_update_individual_customer. However it does not explicitly name or route against that sibling, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 clarifies update semantics ('only provided fields are updated'), which implies this is for modifying an existing customer rather than creating one. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusion relative to create_company_customer or the individual variant.

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