update_customer_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so admirably. It discloses that only provided fields are modified (partial update), that codes alone are silently dropped (requiring both text and code), and that the endpoint only accepts the pre-2025 3-tier schema. These are critical behavioral traits beyond basic 'update.'

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 long, each earning its place: the main action, the alternative for default setting, and two critical warnings. It is front-loaded with the purpose and wastes no words.

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 18-parameter complexity and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential context: partial update semantics, the default-setting alternative, the schema compatibility constraint, and the code/text pairing requirement. It doesn't explain return values, but the absence of an output schema lowers that burden. The main pitfalls are thoroughly addressed.

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 28%, so the description must compensate. It adds crucial meaning for the subdivision fields by explaining the need to pass both text name and code together, and warns about the 3-tier schema limitation. However, many parameters (zip, city, district, etc.) remain unexplained, though they are mostly self-explanatory. The most error-prone fields are well covered.

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 opens with 'Update an existing customer address,' a specific verb+resource that clearly states the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming set_default_customer_address for the default-setting use case, and the contrast with add_customer_address is implicit.

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 gives an explicit alternative: 'To set this address as default, use set_default_customer_address (Sapo dedicated endpoint).' It also states when NOT to use this endpoint (new 2-tier addresses) and describes the failure mode (returns 422). This is clear, actionable guidance.

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