customer_update

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states it updates details and gives an example, but fails to disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replacement). This leaves significant gaps.

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 concise (two sentences plus an example) and well-structured. Every sentence is informative with no fluff, though the parameter details could be integrated more naturally.

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?

The input semantics are well covered, and an output schema exists (reducing need to describe return values). However, for a mutation tool, missing context like idempotency, error behavior, or required permissions makes it less than complete.

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?

The single parameter 'data' is described as a JSON object requiring 'id' or 'email' plus fields to change, with an example. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema, which only defines it as a string. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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 'Update an existing customer's details', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like customer_create, customer_list, and customer_delete_request, making selection unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. Such usage context is absent.

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