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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already declares this is a mutating operation, and 'DESTRUCTIVE: creates a new patient record' restates that rather than adding to it. The POST /patients endpoint reference is mildly useful for traceability, but traits like duplicate-patient handling, failure behavior, or required permissions are unaddressed, so the annotation remains the primary source of behavioral signal.

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?

Three short sentences with the destructive warning front-loaded, which is the right ordering for a write tool. Listing the required fields arguably duplicates the schema's required array, costing a bit of density, but nothing is padded.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the definition covers required inputs and date format but leaves the agent uninformed about what is returned (e.g., a new patient id), whether duplicates are rejected, and what authorization is needed. Adequate but with real gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the five required fields and the yyyy-mm-dd format, which the schema (including a regex pattern) already documents more precisely, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'creates a new patient record' — which cleanly separates it from siblings like drchrono_get_patient and drchrono_list_patients. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

The description says nothing about when to use this tool versus the read siblings, nor any prerequisite such as the doctor id needing to exist first. The only implied guidance is that five fields must be supplied, which is already a schema concern rather than usage guidance.

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