Put Instances Customers By Id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description carries a lighter burden, but it still discloses nothing about what the call does behaviorally: no mention that the nested requestBody is a KYC/customer profile payload, that URLs are re-hosted (as the schema notes for additional_info), or what a failed/partial update leaves behind. Nothing contradicts the annotations, but the description contributes essentially zero behavioral context for a large mutation.

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 words are technically concise but this is under-specification, not conciseness. There is no front-loaded content to structure because essentially no information is present.

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?

A complex, deeply nested customer-profile mutation with 25% schema coverage and no output schema needs far more than two words. An agent has no way to know preconditions, required-field interactions (e.g. tax_type when country is US), or what the response confirms.

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 25% across 4 parameters, the lowest band, so the description must compensate — and it says nothing about any parameter. The three required inputs (id, instance_id, requestBody with its large nested required email/country contract) are entirely undocumented in prose.

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?

"Update Customer" gives a verb (update) and a resource (customer), which translates the opaque tool name into plain semantics. However, it adds no scope: it does not say which customer fields are writable, that the update is scoped to an instance, or how it differs from sibling PostV1InstancesCustomers / GetV1InstancesCustomersById.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. The agent is not told to prefer this over PostV1InstancesCustomers (create) or GetV1InstancesCustomersById (read), nor whether the call is a full replace (PUT) versus a partial patch, which is the critical routing decision in this sibling cluster.

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