Update Customer

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true), the description adds the crucial partial-update behavior—omitted fields remain unchanged. This is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent avoid overwriting data unintentionally, though it doesn't cover error handling or permission requirements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the HTTP method and resource, and every word earns its place. The partial-update note is the single most important semantic and is included without any fluff.

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 rich schema and annotations, the description provides the essential behavioral context (partial update) in a concise way. It doesn't enumerate all parameters, but the schema already handles that, and the tool's core purpose is fully covered.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with rich descriptions for all 12 parameters, so the description is not required to repeat them. It adds the general partial-update concept but no per-parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 explicitly states 'Update an existing customer by ID' with the HTTP method, clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_customer and delete_customer, and the mention of 'partial update semantics' further clarifies the tool's specific behavior.

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 gives clear context: use this to update an existing customer, and only send the fields you want to modify. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative update tools, but the guidance is unambiguous and sufficient for most cases.

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