create_customer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds the return value ({success, id}) and highlights 'optional externalId', which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not discuss permissions, idempotency, or other operational nuances.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and resource, lists major inputs, and includes the return value. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level overview and the return shape. It does not repeat schema details, which is fine. However, it doesn't mention edge cases like the conditional requirement for 'site' when the API key is scoped to multiple stores, but that is covered in the schema. Overall, sufficient for the tool's 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 10 parameters. The tool description summarizes them as 'name, contacts, address, optional externalId' but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 the action ('Create') and the resource ('a customer'), and lists key fields ('name, contacts, address, optional externalId') which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_customer or list_customers. It also includes the return format ({success, id}), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for creating a new customer but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_customer or merge_customers. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, so guidance is only implicit from the verb 'Create'.

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