Set a customer's risk status

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), and the description adds genuine context beyond that: blocked customers cannot receive new payments or accounts and the API surfaces `409 customer_blocked`. That consequence-and-error-code disclosure is exactly what an agent needs before flipping a customer to blocked. It doesn't mention reversibility (setting back to `normal`) or whether `reason` is recorded anywhere, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 body is two efficient clauses, but the first line repeats the title verbatim before the real sentence begins, wasting the most valuable position on a restatement. Front-loading the blocked/409 consequence instead would make it tighter.

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 small mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key side effect and error code, but leaves open the purpose of the `reason` field, whether `normal` lifts restrictions, and what permissions are required. Adequate but with clear gaps given the mutation is not marked destructive.

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 67% and the description partially duplicates the enum documentation for `status` while adding meaning ('elevated' is informational) that the schema does not state. However, the optional `reason` parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap – baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (set a customer's risk status) that maps directly to the enum values, so an agent knows exactly what mutation it performs. It is distinguishable from update_customer in principle, though the description never names that sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 status semantics ('blocked' vs 'elevated' being informational) implicitly tell the agent when each value is appropriate, which is real usage guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of (`update_customer`, `list_risk_events`, `get_risk_limits`) and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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