brc_update_customer

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the preflight/confirm behavior. It explains that the first call returns confirmation_required and a preview. However, it does not explicitly state that the update is irreversible once confirmed, which would enhance transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loading the main action, then clearly outlining the two-step process. No wasted words; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 no output schema, the description mentions return of confirmation_required and payload preview but doesn't detail the payload preview content. With 5 params and nested objects, it covers the essential behavior, but could be more complete about the return structure. The sibling context is not needed for this dimension.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant semantic value for confirmWrite, detailing its usage conditions. For other parameters (id, companyName, payload, updates), it relies on schema descriptions. The critical confirmWrite guidance justifies a 4.

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 'Updates a BRC customer using merged fields', specifying verb and resource. It also explains the two-step process involving confirmWrite. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools like brc_update_product.

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 instructions: first call without confirmWrite:true returns confirmation_required and payload preview; show draft in chat; retry with confirmWrite:true only after explicit user confirmation. It also clarifies that preflight is not confirmation, offering strong guidance on when and how to use.

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