customer_create

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It identifies this as a write that persists a customer and discloses that tax_id/electronic_address are optional for plain PDF workflows, which is useful. But it says nothing about duplicate handling, permission requirements, whether the Idempotency-Key field prevents double creation, or what the call returns (there is no output schema).

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first line. The e-invoicing caveat is scoped tightly to the two fields it concerns.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only two fields and omits most of what an agent would need: idempotency semantics, address object usage, and the shape of a successful response. The in-scope content is strong but the coverage is far too narrow for the tool's complexity.

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 20% across 10 parameters, so the description needs to compensate. It adds genuine domain meaning for tax_id and electronic_address (buyer VAT number vs. Peppol routing identifier, and when each is unnecessary), but the remaining parameters — including the non-obvious Idempotency-Key, metadata, billing_address, and shipping_address — get no explanation at all.

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 states a concrete action and resource: 'Store a customer you can bill repeatedly.' That is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read/update tools (customer_list, customer_get, customer_update). 'Store' is slightly softer than 'create', but the intent is 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?

Usage is only implied: you call this to persist a customer for repeated billing. There is no guidance on when to use customer_create versus customer_update, no mention of handling existing/duplicate customers, and no stated prerequisites. The e-invoicing note gives conditional context for two fields rather than for invoking the tool.

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