record_medication

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

Annotations already declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false) that is non-idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not disclose that repeated adds may create duplicate entries, whether existing records are updated or a new one is appended, or any auth/validation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant detail (scope plus product_type values) comes first. It is efficient, though the terseness leans toward under-specification rather than true economy.

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 not be explained, but for an 8-parameter, 0%-coverage mutation tool the description is far too thin: no usage context, no input semantics beyond one field, and no behavioral notes for a non-idempotent write.

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 8 parameters and there are no enums in the schema, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It supplies only product_type's four accepted values (prescription/otc/supplement/herbal), leaving atc_code, dose_unit, dose_amount, times_per_day, prescribed_for, start_date format, and medication_name semantics 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?

States a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('current medications/supplements'), which is enough to distinguish it from read-side siblings like get_medications and the safety checker check_medication_safety. However, it does not explicitly name those siblings or clarify the write-vs-read boundary, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Notably, the sibling set contains a staging/approval workflow (stage_lab_panel, list_pending_reviews, approve_staged_source) and check_medication_safety, yet the description does not indicate whether medications should be recorded directly or staged/reviewed first.

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