Update CRM Record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It effectively communicates partial/full patch semantics: 'Patch fields' and 'Only include the fields you want changed.' However, it omits side effects, authorization requirements, and behavior when invalid fields or unknown customer IDs are provided.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the example is useful, and the 'only include fields you want changed' instruction 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?

For a simple patch tool with one required parameter and no nested objects, the description covers the main usage context and partial update behavior. Missing output/return info and permission notes are minor given the simplicity, but a small note on failure behavior would make it fully complete for agents.

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 coverage is only 20% (only customerId has a description), so the description must compensate. It names phone and email as example fields to update, but does not clarify the meaning of tier or accountStatus. The enums help partially, but a richer explanation of non-obvious parameters would have been beneficial.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Patch') and resource ('existing customer's CRM record'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_support_ticket or customer_lookup. It communicates the intended operation and the record being modified without ambiguity.

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?

Provides a concrete use case ('after verifying a new phone number or email during a call') and instructs to include only changed fields. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool, but the context and sibling tool names make the boundary reasonably clear.

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