update_customer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Update' signals mutation and 'and/or' hints at partial updates, but the description does not disclose what happens when only customer_id is provided, whether omitted fields preserve their values or are set to null, or how missing IDs are handled. These are significant behavioral gaps for an update 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the operation, target, and affected fields with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

The schema fully documents parameters and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's job. However, the description leaves omitted-parameter semantics ambiguous and gives no guidance on edge cases, making it minimally adequate rather than 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 100%, so the schema already documents customer_id, name, and phone meaningfully. The description adds only that the named fields are the update targets and that the ID identifies the customer, which is a slight reinforcement but not substantial added semantic value beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('existing customer'), and the exact fields affected ('name and/or phone number') plus the identifying mechanism ('by their id'). This fully distinguishes it from the create, delete, list, and get siblings.

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?

'Existing customer' clearly implies this tool is for customers that already exist, not for creation, and 'by their id' indicates the caller must know the target ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to recognize when it applies.

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