upsert_customer_productCreate or update a customer-product assignment that maps a customer item number to an internal item number for a specific language. Writes require explicit enablement.
PUT /customer-product/{customer_number}/{customer_item_number}. Requires AIOTIC_MCP_ALLOW_WRITES=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_number | Yes | ||
| language_code | Yes | ||
| customer_number | Yes | ||
| customer_item_number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a write operation (PUT) and requires an environment flag, but says nothing about idempotency, conflict handling, permissions beyond the flag, or what happens to existing mappings.
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 two short sentences with no padding, and the endpoint is front-loaded. Every part is used, though the content is sparse by deliberate terseness rather than by waste.
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 four-parameter write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too minimal. It adds the write-enable flag and path shape, but omits field semantics, write behavior, error handling, and return information.
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 all four parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description embeds two parameters in the URL path, revealing their path-parameter role, but gives no meaning for item_number or language_code and no semantic explanation of the two path parameters themselves.
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 provides the HTTP method and resource path for the customer-product mapping, and the title explicitly says 'Upsert customer item mapping (write)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like upsert_customer or upsert_product, though the description itself never states the verb 'upsert'.
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 is provided. The only condition mentioned is the environment flag AIOTIC_MCP_ALLOW_WRITES=true, which is a write prerequisite, not guidance about when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives such as upsert_customer or delete_customer_product.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.