merit_update_customer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a POST operation and that fields beyond id are optional patches, which conveys partial-update semantics. However, it does not disclose permissions needed, error behavior for invalid or missing customers, idempotency, or what the response contains.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then immediately provides the critical invocation detail (id required, others optional patches). Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

This tool has 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers the update action and patch semantics. It omits return values, error conditions, authorization expectations, and guidance on choosing between customer-related sibling tools. The description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation in an unfamiliar workflow.

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 only 8%: only 'id' has a description in the schema, while the other 12 parameters are undocumented. The description adds the generic 'other fields are optional patches' rule, but does not explain the meaning or accepted format of any individual field, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Update') and resource ('Merit Aktiva customer'), and names the exact endpoint. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like merit_create_customer and merit_list_customers because the verb and resource are explicit.

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 should be used to update an existing customer and notes that id is required, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of create_customer or list_customers, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required id. Usage context is present but left mostly to inference.

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