Customers Create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the auth scope (write_customers) and API version (2025-03). It does not disclose what happens with a duplicate email, whether send_email_invite triggers side effects, or any response/error behavior.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action, followed by endpoint, scope and version in a scannable order. No filler, though the structured metadata style means it reads as reference data rather than explanatory prose.

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 10-parameter mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the endpoint and auth requirement but omits the important operational details: what the response contains, whether the created customer is returned, and how duplicate-email conflicts are handled. Annotations cover the mutability profile, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 100% across all 10 parameters, including nested addresses and the pass-through additional_fields, so the schema already carries the semantic burden. The description contributes nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given full coverage but yields the baseline 3.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Create a customer"), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like tiendanube_customers_update, tiendanube_customers_get, and tiendanube_customers_delete. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or stating scope boundaries, so it lands at a solid 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb "Create" and the required scope "write_customers", which is a useful prerequisite. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over other customer tools, no preconditions (e.g., duplicate email handling), and no mention of what to do afterward such as fetching the created record.

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