Create a customer

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), so the description does not need to restate mutation. It adds useful business context (customer records are tied to job requests) and flags the service_area_id ownership constraint, but it stops short of describing response behavior or idempotency semantics, which are not covered by annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no wasted sentences. The opening 'Create a customer' is redundant with the title, but the rest of the description earns its place by explaining the purpose and key constraints.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context about what the customer record is, when to use it, and where key parameters live. It doesn't mention the response shape, but the rich schema and clear purpose make the tool callable without that detail.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters fully. The description highlights the nested address object and the service_area_id ownership rule, but these details are also present in the schema, so it adds only marginal value beyond structured definitions.

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 identifies the specific action (creates a customer record) and the resource's role: the client/account profile a job request is booked against. This clearly distinguishes it from other create_* siblings and from read/update/delete operations.

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?

It gives a clear use context: import or sync customers from a CRM, website lead form, or intake flow. It doesn't explicitly state when to use updateCustomer or getCustomer instead, but the intended context is specific enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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