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: edit]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal and the description does not add behavioral context beyond indicating write operations. No disclosure of side effects, permissions, or rate limits. With no annotations providing safety details, the description fails to compensate.
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 includes a confusing 'Flattened action: edit' line that undermines clarity. It front-loads the action list but fails to resolve ambiguity. Could be more concise and structured.
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 schema does not include a mode parameter and the description implies two distinct actions, the lack of clarity on how to specify the action leaves the tool incomplete. No output schema, no error or return value information.
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?
The description mentions parameters like 'billing_id', 'billing_type_id', and 'attribute to edit' that do not exist in the input schema (only 'data' and 'account'). This contradiction misleads the agent about how to invoke the tool. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds incorrect semantics.
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 it can create or edit insurance billing guides, but the note 'Flattened action: edit' creates confusion. It distinguishes create vs edit but the schema does not reflect the required parameters for each action, making the purpose unclear.
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 sibling 'feegow_billing_write_create'. The mention of both create and edit actions without clear delineation misleads the agent. No when-not-to-use information.
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.