Customers Update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the required write_customers scope and the API version. However, it omits the critical behavioral detail that PUT commonly replaces the resource, leaving unclear whether omitted fields are cleared.

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 tightly packed lines with the operation stated first, followed by endpoint, scope, and API version — no filler. It is deliberately telegraphic, though the boilerplate formatting leaves no room for the one sentence of semantics that would matter most.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the definition covers identity, auth, and version but not merge/replace semantics or what the response contains. An agent can invoke it correctly but may not predict the side effects of omitting fields.

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%, so every one of the 11 parameters is already documented in the schema, including nested addresses and the additional_fields escape hatch. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update a customer") plus the exact HTTP endpoint PUT /customers/{id}, which pins down the operation unambiguously. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like tiendanube_customers_create or tiendanube_customers_get, but the name and endpoint make the distinction obvious.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of customers_create or customers_get, and no mention of whether this is a full replace (PUT semantics) or a partial update — a decisive detail for an agent deciding which call to make. The only usage-adjacent information is the required scope, which is an authorization prerequisite rather than selection guidance.

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