set_customer_risk_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose and does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or the fact that customers start with a default risk action (which appears only in the schema description). This leaves significant transparency 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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it sacrifices substance for brevity. Still, it is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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 tool is simple, but the description is too minimal given no annotations or output schema. It does not explain return values, how to reset to default, or how this action affects transaction processing. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools, leaving the context incomplete.

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 50% (risk_action has a clear enum explanation, customer has none). The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for risk_action, and it does not clarify the customer parameter. It fails to compensate for the undocumented customer field.

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 'Whitelist or blacklist a customer' clearly states the action (whitelist/blacklist) on the resource (customer), which aligns with the tool name and distinguishes it from other customer operations like create or update. It is specific and not a tautology, though it could be more explicit about setting a risk action.

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 versus alternatives like update_customer or validate_customer. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and siblings.

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