create_customer

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds context about sub-entities (addresses, businesses) and the response format ('includes a copy of the new customer entity'), which provides useful behavioral information beyond annotations. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 moderately concise but includes some redundant or overly general advice (e.g., 'Don't fabricate, imagine, or infer details'). The first two paragraphs are well-structured, but the latter part contains generic guidance that could be streamlined. It's front-loaded with purpose but could be more efficient.

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's complexity (creation operation, 4 parameters, no output schema), the description provides basic context about sub-entities and response format. However, it lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or system-specific constraints. With annotations covering safety but no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 all four parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or providing examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'create a new customer in Paddle' and explains that 'Customer entities hold information about the people and businesses that make purchases.' This provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_business' or 'create_address' beyond mentioning their relationship.

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 provides some usage guidance with 'Ensure you have all the information needed before making the call' and mentions related sub-entities (addresses, businesses) that can be created through sibling tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_customer' or 'list_customers,' nor does it provide clear exclusions or prerequisites beyond general caution.

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