Update Customer

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

The annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-idempotent, destructive, open-world mutation, and the description adds nothing beyond the endpoint path. It does not disclose what happens to omitted fields, whether updates are full-replacement or partial/merge, or any auth requirements — significant gaps for a destructive mutation tool.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight communication for a 16-parameter mutation.

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 destructive, non-idempotent update tool with 16 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions anywhere, the description is far too thin to enable correct invocation.

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?

There are 16 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema gives only names and types. The description provides no field-level meaning at all, leaving the agent unable to know what each address/metadata/document field expects or how a partial update behaves.

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?

States a clear verb ('Atualiza' = updates) and resource ('cliente' = customer), and the endpoint path confirms it as a customer update. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling create_customer/get_customer, but the verb makes the intent unambiguous. Minor deduction for the Portuguese phrasing in an otherwise English tool family.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus siblings like safefy_payment_create_customer or safefy_payment_get_customer, no prerequisites, and no mention that only the 'id' is required while other fields are optional partial updates.

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