update_customer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly lists side effects: '修改客戶資料，變更立即生效' (changes take effect immediately) and '不可復原（無版本歷史），但可再次呼叫此工具覆蓋' (not reversible, no version history, but can be overwritten). It also states the return structure, making it highly transparent.

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 well-structured with clear sections: [WRITE], purpose, API, return structure, and side effects. Each section is concise and necessary, providing essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with purpose and immediately tells the agent what the tool does.

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 6-parameter update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, partial-update usage, API endpoint, return structure, and side effects. It lacks details on authentication requirements or error conditions, but these are not critical for the basic update operation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% (all 6 parameters described in the schema). The description adds valuable beyond-schema semantics: '僅傳入要修改的欄位，未傳入的欄位不會被覆蓋' (only pass fields to modify; omitted fields are not overwritten). This clarifies the partial-update behavior for all optional fields, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 '更新客戶基本資料' (update customer basic info) and elaborates with '修改客戶姓名、聯絡方式、生日等基本資料' (modify name, contact, birthday, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_customer_tags and update_customer_store_credits, which target different aspects of a customer.

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 clear context on how to use the tool: '僅傳入要修改的欄位，未傳入的欄位不會被覆蓋' (only pass fields to modify; omitted fields are not overwritten). This explains partial-update usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of fully contrasting with sibling update tools.

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