update_customer_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions gateway synchronization, which is a useful side effect, but it does not address reversibility, authentication requirements, potential side effects beyond the gateway, or any error conditions. For a write operation, this is minimal disclosure and well below what is needed without 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?

The description is extremely concise – a single sentence with no fluff. This is structurally efficient, but it borders on under-specification. While the content is front-loaded, the brevity sacrifices essential information, similar to the 'process' example that scored 2 for being under-specified. This one is slightly more informative, so a 3 is appropriate – it is concise but not complete enough to be highly effective.

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?

This is a simple tool with only two parameters, but the description omits critical context: what 'external_id' refers to, whether the email update is ID-based, what the success/error responses look like, or any validation rules. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate, but it does not. Even for a minimal tool, the agent lacks enough to call it reliably.

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 0% – the schema only lists parameter names and types with no explanations. The description adds absolutely no information about the semantics of 'external_id' or 'email', their expected formats, relationships, or constraints. With zero parameter guidance from either source, this dimension is critically deficient.

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 ('Atualiza') and resource ('e-mail de um cliente'), and adds the gateway sync detail. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'update_customer' by focusing on email updates, and the write scope hint reinforces the operation type. This meets the 5-point criterion of a specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_customer' or other write operations. It only notes 'Escopo write', which hints at permissions but does not explain prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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