ls_create_customer

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already convey. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write), idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent), and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not mention side effects, failure conditions (e.g., duplicate email), or whether it returns the created object. It adds no additional transparency beyond the annotation profile.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no redundant or filler content, and every word serves the clarity of the operation. It is appropriately minimal for a simple creation tool.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created customer object or an error). While the schema lists required parameters, the description does not mention them. For a straightforward creation action, the description is minimally adequate but lacks information about the response and potential failure modes, leaving the agent to infer 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters already have descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific context (e.g., why storeId is required or what values are valid). Since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate further.

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 verb ('Create'), the resource ('a new customer'), and the context ('in a store'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like ls_get_customer, ls_update_customer, and ls_archive_customer. The purpose is immediately clear and specific.

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 implies the tool is for adding new customers, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'use ls_update_customer for modifications'). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so the guidance is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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