pennylane_update_individual_customer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: only the supplied fields are changed (patch-style), which directly informs how an agent should call it. It still omits permission/auth requirements and any side effects.

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 is front-loaded before the partial-update qualifier. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with full parameter documentation and the partial-update note, the description is adequate for correct invocation; only optional fields and scope details are left implicit.

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%, with each of the 7 parameters individually documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides; its partial-update note is behavioral rather than parameter-specific.

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 particulier existant"), clearly distinguishing it from pennylane_create_individual_customer. However, it does not differentiate itself from pennylane_update_company_customer, which is the closest sibling and differs only by customer type.

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?

Usage is implied: modify an existing individual customer. The sentence "Seuls les champs fournis sont mis à jour" conveys partial-update semantics, which is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as the company-customer variant.

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