update_customer

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it updates a profile, without specifying whether it is a partial or full update, what happens on non-existent customers, authentication or permission requirements, or any side effects. For a mutation tool this is insufficient, leaving the agent to guess critical behavior.

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 sentence with no redundant words, making it concise and appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose. However, given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested object), one could argue it is under-specified, but that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness problem. The text itself is efficient.

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?

With 8 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must provide substantial context to be usable. It fails to mention how to identify the customer, whether any fields are required (none are marked required but logically an identifier is needed), the relationship to run_operation, or the expected response. This is far from complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema provides descriptions for all 8 parameters, so coverage is 100%, justifying the baseline of 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as how to identify the customer or which fields are expected together. Since the schema already covers basic semantics, the description does not need to compensate, but it also does not enrich understanding of parameter relationships.

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 states the verb 'Обновление' (update) and the resource 'профиль клиента' (customer profile) within 'Mindbox', making the core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling get_customer (read) and create_order (different resource), though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from run_operation which could also update. The single-sentence description gives enough to know what it does, but lacks any elaboration on scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the need for an identifier like external_id or email), nor any exclusion criteria. The agent must infer from the name and sibling tools. This is a clear gap for a tool that overlaps conceptually with get_customer and run_operation.

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