record_allergy

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral rule — that verified=false is still treated as an allergy (fail-safe) — but says nothing about what gets created, whether duplicates are merged, or permission needs.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action, with the fail-safe caveat parenthetically attached. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

For a 5-parameter write tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin — it omits the semantics of most parameters and any mention of the required 'allergen' field. The output schema existing means return values need not be described, but the input side remains incomplete.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the burden and only addresses one of them (verified). The meanings of reaction, severity, and allergen_type are left entirely undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Add an allergy'), which clearly separates it from the read-side sibling get_allergies. It does not, however, distinguish it from the other record_* writers (record_diagnosis, record_medication) beyond the resource 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as record_diagnosis or record_medication, and no prerequisites or context are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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