upsert_clinic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'upsert' but does not explain behavior on conflict (overwrite, merge, etc.), side effects, authentication needs, or error states. The field listing adds some context but lacks operational details.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists fields. It is concise but could be more structured (e.g., separate lines for clarity). However, it avoids unnecessary words.

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 complexity of an upsert operation with many fields and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, idempotency, or how partial updates are handled. The field list is helpful but insufficient for 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 is empty with 'additionalProperties: true', so the description provides the only structure by enumerating expected fields (name, area, verified, etc.) and indicating optionality with '?'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though some fields (like nested objects) are not fully detailed.

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 explicitly states '클리닉 생성/수정(API)' meaning create/update clinic, which is a specific verb+resource. It lists the expected fields, and the tool name 'upsert_clinic' reinforces this. Sibling tools are for different resources (articles, procedures), so no confusion.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., when to create vs update, or if there are specific prerequisites). The description only states what it does, not the context of usage.

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