Create or edit insurance billing guides in Feegow. Actions:
create: create a new SADT billing guide. Pass full data as JSON.
edit: edit a SADT billing guide. Requires billing_id, billing_type_id, plus attribute to edit.
[Flattened action: create]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no readOnly or destructive hints, so description must clarify mutation behavior. It says 'create or edit' but doesn't describe side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or what happens on duplicate creation. The flattened action note adds ambiguity rather than clarity.
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 short but poorly structured. It redundantly lists actions and then adds a contradictory flat comment. The layout is not front-loaded; the key takeaway (flattened action) is at the end. Space could be used more effectively to explain the single actual action and parameter structure.
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?
With low schema coverage and no output schema, the description should fully compensate. It does not explain the 'data' parameter format, the 'account' parameter's purpose, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool, this is critically incomplete, leaving the agent unable to correctly invoke it.
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 has two parameters (data, account) with 0% description coverage. Description adds meaning by mentioning JSON data for create and specific fields (billing_id, billing_type_id) for edit, but these fields are not reflected in the schema's parameter list. This creates confusion and misalignment between description and actual interface.
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 'Create or edit insurance billing guides', which is specific but confusing because a sibling tool 'feegow_billing_write_edit' exists for editing. The purpose is somewhat clear for creation, but the inclusion of editing blurs the distinction without clear differentiation.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the separate edit tool. The description lists create and edit actions, but the input schema lacks an action field, making it unclear how to invoke edit. The final '[Flattened action: create]' suggests only create is actually supported, contradicting the earlier instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have identical descriptions (e.g., multiple tools with same 'Read appointments and scheduling data' text) and only differ by a 'flattened action' label, making it impossible for an agent to distinguish which tool to call for a specific operation.
Names follow a loose verb_noun pattern but are extremely inconsistent: some use underscores, some have redundant prefixes like 'feegow_appointment_', and the same actions are duplicated across multiple tool names (e.g., 'list' appears in many). The 'flattened action' suffix is confusing.
94 tools is far too many for a clinic management system. This is clearly due to a one-action-per-tool design that fragments the API surface, making the server bloated and hard to navigate. A typical well-structured server for this domain would have 10-20 tools.
The server covers many areas (appointments, patients, financial, procedures, stock, etc.), suggesting broad functionality. However, the fragmentation obscures gaps and makes it difficult to determine if all CRUD operations exist for each entity. Some areas (e.g., stock write) have multiple tools for single actions.