create_customer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and provides zero information about side effects, required permissions, error cases, or success behavior. There is no mention of what happens on duplicate names or how the response is structured (though output schema exists). This is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so minimal that it could be considered under-specified rather than concise, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 simple two-parameter create operation with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to know the core purpose. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details that would help the agent decide when to use it and what to expect. An agent might call it without knowing potential failure modes or preconditions.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter descriptions ('Full name of the customer' and 'Phone number of the customer'). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 because schema already documents both parameters adequately.

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 'Create a customer' states a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list_customers, get_customer, delete_customer, update_customer) by indicating the create operation. However, it adds no nuance beyond the tool name, which slightly limits its clarity.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'create' – it is for adding a new customer. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of conditions like uniqueness checks. The agent must infer the intended use case from the tool name alone.

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