Destructive financial operations in Feegow. Actions:
remove_invoice: remove an invoice.
remove_payment: remove a payment.
cancel_voucher: cancel a voucher. All are irreversible.
[Flattened action: remove_invoice]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, and the description adds 'All are irreversible,' which reinforces the destructive nature. This adds minimal extra value beyond annotations, but there is no contradiction. No additional behavioral details (e.g., authentication, side effects) are disclosed.
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 relatively short but includes extraneous information by listing multiple actions not relevant to this specific tool. The 'Flattened action' line helps, but the overall structure could be more focused. Some text is not strictly necessary.
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 two unannotated parameters, no output schema, and a destructive nature, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the input requirements, the effect of the action beyond irreversibility, or any expected outcomes. More detail is needed for safe and correct usage.
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 input schema has two parameters (data, account) with 0% coverage (no descriptions in schema). The description does not mention or explain any parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide. Given low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to do so.
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 tool name and description both indicate it removes an invoice. The description explicitly states 'remove_invoice: remove an invoice' and clarifies it is the flattened action. However, the description also lists other actions (remove_payment, cancel_voucher) which may cause confusion, though it does specify the current tool's action.
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 similar siblings like feegow_financial_delete_cancel_voucher or feegow_financial_delete_remove_payment. The description only says it is destructive and irreversible, but does not provide decision criteria or context.
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.