create_customer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'creates' without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether duplicates are allowed, error handling, or what the output contains. It mentions required vs optional parameters but lacks critical operational context for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second enumerates parameters with clear formatting. Every word contributes necessary information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the key action.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, mutation operation) and no annotations, the description adequately covers parameters but lacks behavioral details and output explanation. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but gaps in usage guidelines and transparency keep it at a baseline level.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'name' is required, lists all optional parameters with examples (e.g., 'EN/AR' for preferred_language, 'WHATSAPP, EMAIL, SMS' for communication_methods), providing essential semantic context not in 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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and resource 'customer in Stream', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'update_customer', which handles modifications rather than initial creation, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_customer' or 'get_customer', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for creation. It only lists parameters without usage context, leaving the agent to infer when this operation is appropriate.

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