Commit FHIR Write

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

The annotations already include destructiveHint: true, and the description redundantly states 'This is a destructive operation.' However, it adds value by disclosing the need for a step-up authorization token, which is not covered by annotations. The description goes beyond annotations but only marginally.

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 very concise with only two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence contributes information. However, it could be slightly reordered for better impact, but overall it is efficient.

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 there is no output schema, and the siblings include fhir_propose_write, the description should explain the relationship with the propose step (e.g., 'Call after fhir_propose_write to finalize'). It also lacks details about what gets destroyed or the return value. The description is incomplete for an agent to use correctly in context.

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 description does not discuss any parameters. The input schema has two parameters with descriptions, but the 'operation' parameter description incorrectly repeats the resource description, reducing its usefulness. With 50% schema coverage and no compensatory information in the description, the parameter semantics are poorly supported.

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 states 'Commit a previously proposed write', which clearly indicates the verb (commit) and the resource (previously proposed write). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like action_commit, so there's room for improvement in distinguishing from similar tools.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires step-up authorization token') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it exclude any inappropriate use cases. No when-not or alternative references are given.

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