Update a customer's billing address (write)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the write nature ('WRITE'), partial update behavior, and a meaningful caution about using the customer's own address/tax data. However, it omits other mutation-relevant details such as permissions, idempotency, or validation behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with 'WRITE.' Each sentence adds meaningful context, and there is no redundant filler. It could briefly mention a sibling alternative, but overall it is efficiently structured.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description covers only the core update behavior and one caution. It leaves parameter semantics, alternative tool selection, and side effects under-specified for an agent needing to invoke it correctly.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the remaining parameters. It adds some context around tax_information ('VAT treatment is derived from') but does not clarify fields like address_line1, address_line2, or customer_ref beyond the schema.

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 a verb and resource: 'Updates the billing address of a ProAbono customer.' This is unambiguous and distinct from the general customer update tool by name and title. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling update_customer, so it stops short of a top score.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance or alternative routing. The 'Only the fields passed are changed' sentence explains partial-update behavior, not when to choose this tool over update_customer. Sibling naming alone is not sufficient guidance.

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