Add genomic/PGx record

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds no further behavioral details, such as whether duplicates are allowed, overwrite behavior, or required permissions. It merely restates the mutation intent.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks critical information. It is not verbose, but its brevity undermines utility for a complex tool with many parameters.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to address the complexity of 26 parameters with no schema descriptions. The agent likely needs parameter guidance to use the tool correctly; the current description is wholly insufficient.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 26 parameters. An agent has no indication of what fields like 'gene', 'rsid', 'zygosity', or 'extra_json' mean, making correct invocation difficult.

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 ('Store') and resource ('one structured genomic/PGx record'), and specifies the context ('as lab-reported data'). This distinguishes it from other 'add_*' tools by record type, though sibling differentiation relies heavily on the name.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., add_biomarker, add_lab_result) or any prerequisites. The description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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