Create customer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not say whether duplicates are rejected, whether email/currency are validated, or what the call returns. For a write tool with 15 parameters this is thin.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action. Nothing is padded, but the second sentence earns little since it duplicates the required field already encoded in the schema.

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?

With 15 parameters, nested address and shippingDetails objects, no output schema, and only 40% schema description coverage, the description leaves most of the tool's contract undocumented. An agent cannot tell what identity fields to prefer (name vs firstName/lastName), how businessId defaults, or what comes back after creation.

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 only 40%, so the schema does not document fax, phone, mobile, website, firstName, lastName, internalNotes, or shippingDetails on its own. The description compensates with the single phrase "only name is required," which merely restates the schema's required array and leaves the other 14 parameters unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Create a customer"), which is unambiguous against siblings like wave_update_customer, wave_delete_customer, or wave_create_invoice. It stops short of any sibling routing (e.g. when to reuse wave_update_customer instead), so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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?

"Only name is required" is a parameter fact, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to use this versus wave_get_customer, wave_list_customers, wave_update_customer, or the generic wave_graphql_query, and no mention of duplicate-detection or preconditions.

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