merit_create_customer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the endpoint, uniqueness constraint, max name length, required-field conditions, and the return shape. However, it does not disclose error behavior, duplicate handling, permissions, or side effects beyond the obvious creation.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the core action and endpoint, and packs in the most critical constraints without any filler. Every sentence adds operational value.

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 17-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is workable but not complete. It captures required fields and the response, and the schema covers many optional fields, but it omits conditional rules like the city requirement and does not provide guidance on optional fields or failure modes.

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 59%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It does add value by explaining the uniqueness/max-length rule for name and clarifying required-field semantics beyond the schema. Yet it leaves the remaining seven undocumented parameters unaddressed, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 a specific action ('Create a Merit Aktiva customer') with an explicit endpoint, and adds distinctive constraints (unique name, required fields). This distinguishes it from siblings like merit_update_customer or merit_create_customer_group without needing to inspect schemas.

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 gives clear usage context by specifying required fields and their business meaning (notTDCustomer for physical persons/foreign companies, countryCode format). It could be stronger by explicitly naming when to choose this over merit_update_customer, but the create-versus-update distinction is reasonably implied by the tool name and action verb.

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