brc_batch_customers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the two-phase commit behavior (preview then confirm), the maximum batch size, and the confirmCrAnalysisCategory flag. It does not detail side effects or error responses, but the key behavioral traits are transparent. A score of 4 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses clear, imperative sentences. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds relevant information. Minor repetition (e.g., 'Maximum 5 items' appears in both description and schema) but not wasteful. Score 4.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It mentions that the first call returns 'confirmation_required and a payload preview', which is helpful, but it does not describe the final success/failure response after confirmWrite or error conditions. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to infer behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the workflow for confirmWrite, the nature of items (batch items with max 5), context for priceBasis (when to use net vs gross), and confirmCrAnalysisCategory. This is exemplary parameter guidance.

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 'Processes a batch of customers' which clearly indicates it handles multiple customers in batch. It distinguishes from siblings like brc_batch_products or brc_batch_cash_payments. However, it does not specify whether 'process' means create, update, or both, so clarity is slightly diminished.

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 explicit step-by-step guidelines: maximum 5 items, first call without confirmWrite returns a preview, show a plain-English draft, then retry with confirmWrite: true only after explicit user confirmation. It also warns that passing preflight is not confirmation and mentions confirmCrAnalysisCategory. This clearly tells the agent when and how to use the tool and when not to.

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