Set Customer Data

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

Annotations already indicate a write (readOnlyHint false) and idempotent operation (idempotentHint true). The description adds key behavioral context by stating that the operation 'replaces the stored customer data entirely' and supports optimistic concurrency, which goes beyond what the annotations alone convey. No contradictions.

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 three short sentences that are front-loaded with the HTTP method and purpose. Each sentence delivers distinct information: the action, the replacement behavior, and concurrency support. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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?

Given the simple PUT operation, the description combined with the detailed schema and annotations provides a solid understanding of the tool's behavior and parameters. The main gap is the lack of response/return value information, which would be helpful since there is no output schema, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward set operation.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond highlighting the version parameter's role, so it does not enhance the schema's already complete parameter information.

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 clearly states the tool sets a customer's data field via HTTP PUT and specifies that it replaces the stored data entirely. This provides a specific verb, resource, and behavioral scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like gorgias_update_customer.

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 the tool should be used when you want to replace an entire customer data field, and mentions optimistic concurrency for version control. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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