Update a PowerOffice customer

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, but the description adds important behavioral context: only mutable CustomerPatchDto paths are accepted, and confirm=true requires explicit user approval of the exact changes. This goes beyond a simple 'update' statement and clarifies safety-critical behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the operation and endpoint, the second constrains allowed patch paths, and the third states the confirmation requirement. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 covers the key operational concerns for a destructive update: allowed paths and explicit confirmation. It does not enumerate the actual mutable CustomerPatchDto paths, which would require an agent to know them from elsewhere, but the endpoint, annotations, and output schema cover most remaining context.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that patch is JSON Patch, restricting it to mutable CustomerPatchDto paths, and defining confirm as an explicit user-approval flag. The id parameter is inferable from the endpoint /Customers/{id}.

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 states a specific verb, resource, and endpoint: 'Update one customer with JSON Patch at PATCH /Customers/{id}'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like poweroffice_create_customer, poweroffice_get_customer, and poweroffice_search_customers.

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 gives operational guidance, especially the explicit confirmation requirement for confirm=true, but it does not name alternatives or state when to use this tool versus create_or_get variants. Usage context is implied by the tool name and endpoint rather than explicitly spelled out.

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