Update customer

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

The annotations already declare mutation, idempotency, and destructiveness. The description adds important behavior beyond them: only supplied fields change, while nested address/shipping objects replace existing objects, which is a meaningful mutation nuance.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted wording. The partial-update rule is front-loaded, and the nested-replacement caveat follows immediately.

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?

For a 15-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key partial-update and nested-replacement behavior but omits required-ID semantics, permission implications, and what happens when invalid fields are supplied. It is adequate but not complete.

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 33%, so the description must compensate for many undocumented parameters. It usefully explains nested-object replacement semantics, but it does not clarify the required id or the many flat customer fields beyond what their names imply.

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: "Change fields on a customer." It is clearly distinct from create, get, delete, or list customer tools, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 when to use the tool by explaining partial field updates and nested object replacement. However, it does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or how to choose it over create/delete alternatives.

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