create_pro_customer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a creation action but lacks details on side effects (e.g., duplicate handling), authorization requirements, or output behavior. This is insufficient for a write operation with no annotations.

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 superfluous information. It is front-loaded with the core action and use case, earning its place efficiently.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple creation tool with four parameters, but it lacks information about return values, error states, or any constraints. Without an output schema, additional detail on what the tool returns (e.g., customer ID) would enhance completeness.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds 'capture inbound caller details before scheduling a job' but does not provide additional meaning or usage nuances beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 registers a new customer in the Housecall Pro CRM and specifies the use case for AI receptionists capturing inbound caller details before scheduling a job. This verb+resource pairing is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_estimate or schedule_new_job.

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 explicitly mentions the tool is used by AI receptionists to capture inbound caller details before scheduling a job, providing clear context. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the context effectively implies its purpose relative to siblings.

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