record_diagnosis

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds one genuine behavioral nuance beyond that: advice is only surfaced for confirmed diagnoses, plus the verification_status vocabulary. It says nothing about duplicate handling, permissions, or what happens to previously recorded diagnoses.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good, but the truncated enum 'suspected/…/confirmed/refuted' wastes a slot on an ellipsis and the brevity edges into under-specification rather than tightness.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage and a rich sibling set of record_* tools, the definition is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but input semantics and routing guidance are missing.

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 six parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only illuminates verification_status (values suspected/…/confirmed/refuted) and leaves diagnosis_name, diagnosed_at, severity, icd10_code, and clinical_status completely unexplained, including required-vs-optional expectations.

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 (Add) and resource (diagnosis), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_diagnoses or from other record_* tools like record_allergy and record_medication, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative. The parenthetical about advice only on confirmed is a downstream consequence, not a usage rule for invoking this tool.

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