ls_update_customer

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, non-read operation. Description complements by noting that setting status='archived' is equivalent to calling ls_archive_customer, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and updatable fields, second clarifies status limitation and alternative. No redundant information.

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?

Given rich schema descriptions and annotations, the description covers key aspects: what it does, what fields can be updated, and the special status case. No output schema needed as result is standard update response.

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 100% with detailed descriptions. Description adds value by specifying status constraint and linking to alternative tool, which aids understanding beyond 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 'Update an existing customer' with specific fields (name, email, city, region, country, status). It distinguishes from sibling tool ls_archive_customer by noting the dedicated path for archiving.

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?

Explicitly advises to use ls_archive_customer for archiving with audit trail, and clarifies that 'archived' is the only supported status value. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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