update_customer_status

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

With zero annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the two most important traits: this is a mutation and it requires admin scope. It says nothing about reversibility (e.g., whether archived is terminal), side effects such as revoked access on suspension, idempotency, or error behavior, which are the remaining gaps for a write 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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded ahead of the mutation/auth caveat. Efficient, though the parenthetical auth note is slightly compressed rather than fully stated.

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 three-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is too thin: one required credential parameter is entirely undocument and status-transition consequences are unstated. What is present is accurate but does not cover enough for an agent to act confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It covers customerId ("customer UUID") and status ("account status") at a bare level, but adds no meaning about the active/suspended/archived enum semantics or allowed transitions, and never mentions the adminToken credential at all.

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 pairs a specific verb and resource ("Updates account status") with the identifier it acts on (a customer UUID), so the agent knows the exact operation without opening the schema. It does not explicitly name the sibling get_customer_metrics, but the read-versus-write distinction is obvious from "Mutation".

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?

"Requires Admin Scope" gives an actionable prerequisite for calling the tool, which is real usage context. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over the sibling tool, no mention of permitted status transitions, and no indication of when NOT to change a status.

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