pospal_create_customer

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the non-reusability of the number field after deletion, but does not describe the creation process, side effects, permissions needed, or the response format. The existence of an output schema mitigates this slightly, but the description itself is insufficient.

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 very concise with a single sentence and note. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it is under-specified, which reduces its effectiveness. It earns its place but could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, creation with constraints) and the absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover all parameters, lacks usage context, and does not leverage the output schema. The note about number reuse is helpful but not enough to satisfy completeness.

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%, meaning no parameters are explained in the schema description. The description only adds semantic value for the 'number' parameter (not reusable after deletion). The other three parameters ('name', 'tel', 'remarks') receive no explanation. This is a significant gap.

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 the action ('Create member') and the resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pospal_create_category or pospal_create_product. The notation '【写】' indicates a write operation, which helps. However, a slightly more explicit distinction would push it to 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?

The description provides one notable constraint: 'number is the membership card number (not reusable after deletion).' This guides usage regarding the number field. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus other customer-related tools (e.g., pospal_update_customer, pospal_delete_customer) or any prerequisites.

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