Update customer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the same endpoint is used for create/update, that it is not a partial patch, and that error messages are returned verbatim. This is good, but lacks info on auth, rate limits, or side effects. Still, it covers key behavioral traits.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds unique value (endpoint behavior, patch requirement, error handling, docs reference). No wasted 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 2 params (one nested object) and no output schema, the description covers the critical non-partial behavior and error guidance. It does not explain the success response, but the tool is mutation-focused and response format may be inferred. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% (id and body described). The description reiterates the body must include all required fields and references the Loyverse API docs. This adds slight value beyond schema, but the schema already explains the body as a full set. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool updates an existing customer using POST /customers with an 'id' field. It explicitly distinguishes from creation by noting the same endpoint behavior and clarifies it is not a partial patch. The verb 'update' and resource 'customer' are specific and 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 provides clear guidance: include all required fields, not just changed ones, and retry on 400 errors. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or comparison with sibling tools like create_customer. The context is helpful but not exhaustive.

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