update_customer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies mutation but says nothing about partial-vs-full update semantics, whether unspecified fields are preserved, required permissions, or failure behavior for a nonexistent customerId.

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 efficient sentence with no waste. It is appropriately front-loaded, though the brevity contributes to its gaps elsewhere.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It should at least enumerate the updatable fields and clarify partial-update behavior.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only refers to generic 'fields' without naming the updatable properties (name, email, phone) or noting that customerId is the required identifier. It adds essentially no meaning beyond the raw 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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (customer) and scopes it to an 'existing' customer, which implicitly distinguishes it from create_customer. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_invoice or update_estimate beyond the resource noun.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_customer or delete_customer, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that the customer must exist). Usage is only implied by the verb 'update'.

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