updateCustomerMembership

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds context about the app dependency and the specific fields to update. No contradiction with annotations; the description effectively supplements them by detailing the required app setup.

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 paragraph with information front-loaded: purpose first, then parameters, then condition, then alternatives. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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 description lacks details about the response or error handling. For a mutation tool with no output schema, it would be helpful to know what the successful response looks like or whether updates are immediate. This gap prevents a higher score.

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 baseline is 3. The description explains the role of each parameter (customer_id for target, membership.membership_id for new rank ID) but does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool's purpose: updating a customer's membership rank. It specifies the required parameters (customer_id and membership.membership_id) and distinguishes this tool from related siblings (deleteCustomerGroupMembership, getCustomer, updateCustomers) by mentioning their uses.

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 explicit usage guidance: it only works for shops with the '会員ランク' app installed, and it directs users to alternative tools for removing membership or accessing other customer data. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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