upsert_lab_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals permission enforcement (FORBIDDEN for non-doctor_assistant), the side effect of setting recommend_reevaluate=true, and the rollback behavior of write_mode=False. This is comprehensive for the tool's core behaviors.

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?

The description is brief, with the purpose in the first sentence and key behavioral notes in the second. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clean.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The description covers permission, success side effects, and rollback mode, but lacks guidance on preconditions (e.g., patient existence) and does not reference sibling tools for read alternatives. It's adequate for most usage, but not fully 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain write_mode's rollback behavior and implies caller is permission-tied, but it doesn't describe patient_id or the lab object structure beyond '新增一条检验采样'. Partially compensates but has gaps.

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 explicitly states '新增一条检验采样' (add a new lab sample), which clearly identifies the operation as creating/upserting a lab result. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being the only write operation among read/list tools.

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?

The description provides clear context: it specifies that only doctor_assistant has write permissions, implying usage is restricted to that caller. It also explains the rollback mode for validation, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. Still, it gives sufficient context for an orchestration layer.

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