create-customer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a concrete behavior (POST request that creates a customer) and a required authorization scope (customers:write), which is useful. However, it does not describe the response shape, idempotency, validation failure behavior, or other side effects, so transparency is only partial.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. It packs the endpoint information and scope requirement into a compact form, making it easy to scan. A bit more guidance would be desirable, but the structure itself is clean.

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 create operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It provides the endpoint and scope but lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and response expectations. An agent would need to look at sibling functions and trust the schema to correctly invoke this tool.

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 0% and the description does not mention any parameter details. The input schema lists name, email, and phone with types and constraints, but the description adds no semantic guidance about these fields. Since coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 specific verb (Create), resource (a customer), exact HTTP endpoint (POST /api/public/customers), and required scope (customers:write). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-customer, update-customer, archive-customer, and create-customer-contact.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. While the name and verb make the core purpose obvious, there is no indication of how create-customer relates to alternative creation tools such as create-person, create-organization, or create-customer-contact, so the agent must infer the correct choice.

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