Create a customer

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, establishing this as a non-destructive write. The description adds the useful required-field constraint ('Needs a company or a last name and a full address'), which is genuine behavioral context. However, it omits what happens on duplicate detection, what the response contains, or any rate/permission requirements – gaps that matter for a creation tool.

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 tight sentences, no wasted words, and the required-field constraint is front-loaded after the purpose statement. Efficient and readable.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with 8 parameters at 13% schema coverage, the description only covers a subset of semantics, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of several optional fields. A creation tool of this complexity warrants more parameter and behavioral context.

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 13%, so the description must carry weight. It does explain the key business rules: an address requires line 1, postal code, city, and country, and either company or last name is needed. But with 8 parameters, several (email, phone, vat_number, buyer_reference, first_name) have no explanation in either schema or description. Partial compensation, not full.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a customer') that clearly distinguishes it from the sibling update_customer and find_customers. An agent can identify this as the record-creation tool without opening the 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like find_customers (to check for duplicates first) or update_customer. The description gives no context about preconditions or when this tool should be selected over siblings.

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