Update Customer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether updates are partial or full overwrite, how metadata merging works, or idempotency implications. The schema hints at merging metadata but description omits this.

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 waste. However, given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects), it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose. Still 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, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not indicate how updates are applied (partial vs full), how to clear fields, or mention idempotency. Context signals show high schema coverage but the description compensates little.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for parameters, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond 'update details'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents each parameter.

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 'Update an existing Stripe customer's details', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_customer' and 'retrieve_customer' by focusing on updating, not creating or retrieving.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., customer must exist), nor any explicit when-not-to-use advice. Sibling tools include creation and retrieval, but no comparative hints.

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