MCP Cliniko Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions archiving (implying soft deletion rather than permanent removal), which adds some context beyond just 'delete.' However, it lacks critical details like whether this requires special permissions, if deletion is reversible, what happens to associated data (e.g., appointments, invoices), or error conditions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by clarifying the action (archive vs. delete) and target.

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 tool's complexity (a destructive mutation on a key resource like a patient), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral nuances (e.g., archiving effects, dependencies), error handling, or return values. For a high-stakes operation in a medical context, more context is warranted.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'patient_id' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but with only one well-documented parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is strong. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete (archive)') and resource ('a patient'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from other patient-related tools like 'update_patient' or 'get_patient' beyond the obvious deletion 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., patient must exist), consequences of deletion, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'cleanup_test_data' for test patients. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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