Upsert customer (write)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful facts: this is a write (PUT) and it is blocked unless AIOTIC_MCP_ALLOW_WRITES=true — a real operational prerequisite. But it omits the core upsert semantics (does data replace the whole record or merge?), what happens to unmentioned fields, idempotency, and the response shape, which are critical for a mutation 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the route and followed by the gating requirement — no filler and every clause carries information. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

For a nested-object write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine upsert merge-vs-replace behavior, error/response handling, or what the ten data fields should contain, leaving significant gaps before a safe invocation.

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 adds almost nothing. The path template does map 'number' to a path parameter, but the 'data' object with ten fields (name, city, email, vat_number, etc.) is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so the agent gets no guidance on field meaning, requiredness, or format.

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 gives an HTTP route (PUT /customer/{number}), which combined with the name/title implies a create-or-update of a customer keyed by number. However, it never states in plain terms what the tool does or that "upsert" means create-if-absent/update-if-present, and it does not distinguish this from siblings like get_customer, search_customers, or delete_customer. The agent has to infer the purpose from HTTP verb semantics.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named even though several siblings (upsert_customer_product, get_customer, delete_customer) overlap in domain. The only conditioning information is the env-var prerequisite, which gates execution but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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