Update customer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly carried for it. The description nonetheless adds nothing: it does not say whether this is a partial (PATCH) or full replace, whether omitted fields are cleared, or that confirm/payload_file exclusivity matters.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is structurally clean. But at 11 parameters with a nested object and a destructive annotation, one generic sentence is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, 45% schema coverage, and a nested body alternative, the description omits update semantics, required confirmation, and the payload/payload_file choice. An agent cannot call this correctly from the description alone.

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 only 45% and six top-level fields (city, name, email, region, status, country) have empty descriptions. The phrase 'provided attributes' does not explain the dual payload vs payload_file input paths or the nested data/type/id/attributes structure.

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 (Updates) and resource (customer) tied to an ID, so the operation itself is unambiguous. However, it never differentiates from the adjacent get_customer, create_customer, or list_customers siblings, and 'provided attributes' is left undefined.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_customer for new records. The only operational hint ('Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action' on confirm) lives in the schema, not the description.

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