update_customer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without explaining whether the update is partial or full replacement, whether the body is passed through to Bigcapital, what side effects occur, or what the response will look like. There is no behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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 text is short, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness. It has no front-loaded value beyond restating the tool name and leaves the agent with no actionable 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, a nested passthrough body parameter, and many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to convey required context such as how the body should be structured, prerequisites like customer existence, or any behavior following the update.

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?

The description contributes no parameter-level meaning. The schema documents the 'body' parameter as a passthrough to Bigcapital and constrains 'id' as a positive integer, so some semantics exist structurally, but the description neither expands on these nor clarifies the expected shape of the body. With 50% schema description coverage and no support from the description, parameter understanding relies on inference.

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 'Update a customer' simply restates the tool name 'update_customer' without adding any scope, nuance, or distinction from sibling tools such as create_customer, get_customer, or update_vendor. It identifies the verb and resource but provides nothing beyond what the name already communicates.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that create_customer is for new records, get_customer is for retrieval, or update_vendor is for vendors. The description offers only the tautological implication that you should use it to update a customer.

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