record_allergy

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

Annotations declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: entries are stored immediately as approved with manual provenance, and unverified allergies are still treated as real. It could go further on duplicate handling given dedup is recommended.

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?

Front-loads the action and side effect, then a compact parameter glossary, then a dedup warning. Dense but every line carries needed information given the empty schema.

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?

With annotations present and an output schema existing, the description covers creation semantics, provenance, parameter meanings, and dedup. Minor gaps remain around duplicate handling and whether edits/removals are possible.

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 coverage is 0% and the description fully compensates, defining each of the 5 parameters with examples (Penicillin) and candidate values for severity and allergen_type, plus the critical semantic that unverified allergies are still treated as real.

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+resource ('Add an allergy the user reports') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling get_allergies by telling the agent to check that first. The scope and write semantics are unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit operative guidance: check get_allergies first to avoid duplicates, and use verified=true only when doctor/test-confirmed. Clear context, though it does not state when not to record an allergy (e.g. duplicate handling behavior).

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