bridge_create_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 mentions KYC/KYB onboarding, hinting at a compliance workflow, but it does not disclose side effects, required prerequisites, conditional fields based on customer type, or post-creation steps. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no superfluous information.

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 has 12 parameters, conditional requirements (first_name/last_name for individual, business_name for business), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the distinction between individual and business fields, idempotency behavior, or what to expect after creation.

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 58%, with several parameters like city, state, country, postal_code, and street_line_1 lacking descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter guidance beyond echoing the 'type' enum values already present in the schema. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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), the resource (customer), and the scope (individual or business for KYC/KYB onboarding). This distinguishes it from sibling create tools like bridge_create_wallet or bridge_create_transfer.

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 clear context about when to use the tool: creating a customer for KYC/KYB onboarding. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the scope is self-evident given the create operation and sibling tool names.

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