update-customer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals that this is a mutation, but does not explain partial-update semantics, required permissions, how omitted fields are treated, consent implications, or metafield upsert 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?

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded. However, its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 tool with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and sparse schema coverage, a one-sentence description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot infer the important behavioral and parameter details needed to invoke it safely.

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 only 20% across 10 parameters, including nested objects and an enum-bearing consent object. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not compensate for the undocumented fields.

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 clear verb and resource ('Update a customer's information'), so an agent can identify the operation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as create-customer, delete-customer, customer-merge, or manage-customer-address.

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 tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The sibling list contains several closely related customer and metafield tools, but the description does not route the agent among them.

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