Update customer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial-update behavior via 'plain JSON PATCH' and lists updatable fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention response format, error cases, authorization requirements, or whether omitted fields are retained or reset—common expectations for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second lists fields and provides a pointer for exact shape. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotations, and information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, nested object, no output schema), the description covers purpose, updatable fields, and a route to the exact schema. It does not describe the return value or side effects, but the explicit pointer to get_operation_schema fills a key gap, making it nearly complete for an update operation.

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?

Although the schema already covers both parameters (100% coverage), the description adds value by explicitly listing allowed updatable fields (note, first_name, last_name, email) and clarifying that the 'customer' object is a PATCH payload. This goes beyond the generic schema description referencing get_operation_schema.

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 ('Update a customer') and specifies the HTTP-like semantics ('plain JSON PATCH'), distinguishing it from read-only siblings like get_customer and list_customers. It also enumerates updatable fields, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 when an existing customer needs modification and explicitly directs the caller to get_operation_schema("UpdateCustomer") for the exact request shape, serving as a usage prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or contrast with alternatives, though none exist for customer updates.

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