ls_update_customer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, but the description adds valuable nuance: only the status='archived' path is destructive, and that path is rate-limited and audited. It also states that other field edits are not destructive, which goes beyond the tool-level annotation. This is good behavioral context.

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 three short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the critical destructive-context caveat following immediately. There is no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail.

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?

Together with the rich schema and annotations, the description covers what the tool updates, the special status behavior, and the destructive implications. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, and partial-update semantics are only implied by openWorldHint, but nothing essential for selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

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 every parameter already has a meaningful description in the schema. The description repeats the status/archive equivalence but adds no new format, constraint, or behavior details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing customer's name, email, city, region, country, or status.' Saying 'existing' distinguishes it from creation tools, and the status/archive mention explicitly relates it to ls_archive_customer. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does.

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 names ls_archive_customer as an equivalent for the status field and clarifies that other field edits are not destructive. This gives clear context for choosing between a normal update and an archive operation. It stops short of an explicit preference like 'use ls_archive_customer for archive-only requests,' but the guidance is strong.

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