update_customer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the write nature is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context—critically, it does not clarify whether omitted fields are preserved (patch semantics) or reset (put semantics). Since partial updates are a common behavior for update tools with multiple optional fields, this omission leaves an important behavioral trait undisclosed.

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 that states the purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and no word is wasted. Perfectly concise for the information it conveys.

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?

The tool has 8 optional parameters (plus required id) and an output schema, but the description does not explain the update semantics (whether missing fields are preserved or cleared). This is a critical piece of information for an agent to call the tool correctly. The output schema covers return values, but the lack of partial-update clarification makes the definition incomplete 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a brief description (e.g., 'Updated full name'). The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify ambiguous fields like 'channel' or 'socialHandle.' With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description provides no extra value.

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 a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('existing customer in Chirak'), and mentions the kind of fields affected (contact details, delivery address, notes). It distinguishes from add_customer and delete_customer by the phrase 'existing customer,' though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific enough for an agent to understand what it does.

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 implies it is for modifying an existing customer, which rules out creation or deletion. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over add_customer or delete_customer, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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