books_update_customer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'update existing customer' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as partial update semantics, required fields beyond customer_id, error handling, or return values. This is minimal disclosure beyond the obvious mutation.

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 single sentence is concise with no waste, but it is under-specified. For a tool with 12 parameters, this is not appropriately sized; it lacks necessary detail to be considered well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a 12-parameter input schema with zero description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide any usage context, parameter guidance, or behavioral transparency needed for correct invocation.

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 mentions no parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. All 12 properties, including enums like contact_type and customer_sub_type, are left completely unexplained. The description adds no value to the schema.

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 action (update), the resource (customer), and the scope (existing), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like books_create_customer and books_delete_customer. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the verb 'update' implies existing records, there are no explicit exclusions or references to sibling tools for context.

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