create_customer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It documents default-currency fallback for currency and character caps for notes/address sub-fields, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what the response contains, whether creation can be undone, or any auth/permission requirements for a mutation operation.

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 well-organized with clear parameter sections and is reasonably concise. Every sentence adds value, especially the currency default explanation. The format is a bit docstring-like rather than prose but remains scannable and efficient.

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 4-parameter schema with an output schema present, the description covers the key semantics: name requirement, currency default, notes cap, and address sub-structure. The output schema handles return values. The main gap is lack of usage context relative to sibling tools, but for a create operation the description is fairly complete.

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 25%, so the description compensates meaningfully. It explains the currency default behavior, provides a concrete name example, clarifies the address sub-field structure and caps, and states the notes limit. This adds real value beyond the bare schema.

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 it creates a new customer with specific verb+resource. It's distinct from sibling tools like list_customers, get_customer, update_customer, and delete_customer, though it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives. The action and target are unambiguous.

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 implies usage (creating customers) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It offers parameter behavior context but nothing about when choose this tool over other customer-related tools.

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