Add Customer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a conflict response is returned if similar customers exist and that skip_duplicate_check bypasses this. This provides good transparency for a creation tool, though it does not specify the success response or error handling beyond conflicts.

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 sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds essential information.

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?

Given the tool has 12 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the primary use case, conflict behavior, and retry mechanism. It does not describe return values or error handling beyond conflicts, but this is sufficient for a creation tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the conflict resolution context for skip_duplicate_check but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The conflict handling is the main added insight.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new customer record' and defines customers as organizations or individuals. It distinguishes from sibling tools by detailing the unique conflict detection and skip_duplicate_check behavior.

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 clearly states when to use this tool (to create a new customer) and provides guidance on handling conflicts, including how to bypass duplicate checks on retry. It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools but the context is clear.

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