update_customer

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint: true. The description adds behavioral context: the emoji warning and 'Confirmar con usuario' indicate that this operation is destructive and requires user approval. It also tells the agent to look at create_customer for valid values, which is useful beyond the 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?

The description is very concise, consisting of a single line with a warning and two instructions. It is front-loaded with the warning icon, making key information prominent. However, it lacks structure (e.g., separating warnings from instructions) but remains efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description for a complex tool with 22 parameters, 7 required, and destructive behavior is severely incomplete. It does not specify that customer_id must exist, how partial updates work (PATCH vs PUT), or any error conditions. The reference to create_customer is helpful but insufficient.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 22 parameters (7 required). The brief mention to 'Ver create_customer' does not directly add meaning to the parameters here. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter semantics.

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 'Actualiza un cliente' (updates a customer), which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_customer and delete_customer by implying it is for modifying existing customers. The warning emoji and call to confirm with user add clarity.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Confirmar con usuario' (confirm with user) and references create_customer for valid values. This tells the agent when to proceed carefully and where to find input constraints, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like create_customer.

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