ls_update_customer

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

The description discloses a crucial behavioral nuance: setting status to 'archived' is treated as destructive and is rate-limited and audited, which the annotations' destructiveHint=false does not convey. It also clarifies that other field edits are not destructive, adding context beyond the structured 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: the first states the action and target fields, the second covers the status special case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers the core purpose, the key destructive edge case, and differentiates from a relevant sibling. With no output schema, it doesn't describe return values, but for an update tool with strong parameter schema coverage, this is a minor gap and the overall context is sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the status parameter's constraint ('only supported value is archived') and its equivalence to the archive operation. This elevates the score.

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 uses the verb 'Update' with a specific resource 'existing customer' and lists the exact updatable fields, making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ls_create_customer and ls_archive_customer by noting the equivalence for status changes.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use the tool (updating customer fields) and explicitly points out that setting status to 'archived' is the same operation as ls_archive_customer, which serves as an alternative. It doesn't explicitly say 'use ls_archive_customer if you only need to archive,' but the equivalence provides strong guidance.

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