beel_patch_customer

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

Annotations already cover idempotency (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false), lowering the burden. The description genuinely adds behavior beyond that: the PATCH partial-application rule, the critical distinction that a null clears a field whereas omitting keeps it, and the warning that no PUT exists so omitted fields are never wiped. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Three crisp paragraphs, each earning its place: the core update semantics are front-loaded first, the canonical-usage context second, and the endpoint reference last. No filler, no repeated annotation content, and the most error-prone detail (null clearing) is surfaced 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 subtle partial-update operation, the description covers the essential high-level semantics (touch-only, null-clears, no PUT) while the rich input schema carries field-level validation, AEAT checks and VeriFactu rules. No output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't owed. A minor gap: it never flags the sibling relationship to beel_create_customer/beel_delete_customer, but the core needed context is present.

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 67%, and the schema's $defs are exceptionally rich (PatchCustomerRequest documents the null-clear rule per field, company_id explains the 403/disclosure behavior). The description reinforces the null-vs-omit idea and points 'see PatchCustomerRequest', but it does not add parameter meaning the schema doesn't already convey, so it sits at the baseline.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Updates only the fields present in the body... of the customer') and pins down the exact semantic: partial update with omitted fields untouched. It distinguishes itself from the hypothetical full-replacement PUT and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like beel_create_customer and beel_get_customer without opening a schema.

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?

'This is the canonical way to edit a customer' is explicit and actionable, and naming the non-existent PUT ('which would clear the fields you omit') preempts the agent from looking for a full-replacement route. It stops short of contrasting against the generic beel_patch_by_id sibling or stating when create/delete are preferable, so it loses a point.

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