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_payment]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds 'All are irreversible,' which is consistent but adds little beyond the annotation. The description also falsely implies the tool handles multiple action types, which misrepresents its behavior.
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 unnecessary information about other actions. The 'Flattened action' note adds clarity but the overall structure is muddled. It could be more concise by focusing solely on 'remove_payment'.
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 that this is a destructive operation with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain the parameters, the expected input format, or the consequences beyond 'irreversible'. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the description.
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' and 'account'), but the description provides no explanation of their meaning, format, or purpose. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate but 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 description lists three actions (remove_invoice, remove_payment, cancel_voucher) but then states '[Flattened action: remove_payment]', creating ambiguity about what the tool actually does. The tool name suggests it is for removing payments only, yet the description broadens the scope incorrectly.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. sibling tools like 'feegow_financial_delete_cancel_voucher' or 'feegow_financial_delete_remove_invoice'. The description does not help the agent decide which action to invoke.
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.