record_diagnosis

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

With annotations declaring non-readOnly/non-destructive/non-idempotent, the description adds real context beyond them: records are 'stored immediately as approved, with manual provenance,' which tells the agent there is no review gate. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g., what happens if a duplicate is recorded) or permission requirements.

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 operation and its key behavioral trait, then enumerates parameters compactly with no filler. The unbulleted parameter dump is slightly dense to scan but every line earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers all parameters plus the immediate-approval behavior. Minor gaps remain around duplicate handling and auth, but the core calling information is complete.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so: date format (YYYY-MM-DD), which fields are optional, defaults for clinical_status and verification_status, and the full verification_status value set. This is materially more than the schema provides.

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 and resource ('Add a diagnosis') and immediately characterizes the write as immediate and approved, which separates it from read siblings like get_diagnoses. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to 'Check get_diagnoses first to avoid duplicates' and gives value-level guidance for verification_status ('use suspected or provisional for anything not confirmed by a doctor'). It lacks guidance on when not to record, or how this relates to other write siblings like record_allergy or record_medication.

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