PostCustomers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the need for a registration token in the request header, which is useful context about authentication requirements. However, it doesn't describe other critical behaviors such as what data the 'fields' parameter expects, whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Register'), error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and a key prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Register a customer'), though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage instructions more clearly.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and 1 undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It mentions the token prerequisite but doesn't explain the parameter, expected behavior, or response format, making it inadequate for proper tool invocation in this 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter ('fields') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't explain what 'fields' represents, what format it expects, or what data is required for customer registration. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear despite the low baseline expectation.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('a customer'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'PostActor_typeAuth_provider_register' or 'PostSession', which might also handle user/customer registration in different contexts.

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 context by mentioning the prerequisite step of using '/auth/customer/emailpass/register' API route to obtain a registration token. This implies when to use this tool (after token retrieval), but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it with alternatives like other registration-related sibling tools.

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