medications_update_medication

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that only provided fields are changed, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits any mention of permissions, side effects, reversibility, or what happens when a field is explicitly set to null—important for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the partial-update rule is stated in the second sentence. Every word 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?

For an 8-parameter update tool, the description is adequate but leaves a key ambiguity: whether null values are treated as 'not provided' or as explicit attempts to clear fields. The description says 'Only provided fields are changed' but does not clarify null semantics. Since the output schema exists, return values need no explanation, but this null-handling gap affects completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that only provided fields are changed, giving each optional parameter a consistent partial-update semantic that the individual field descriptions do not convey. This is meaningful context for how to use parameters like name, dosage, or notes.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the specific resource 'an existing medication record', distinguishing it from siblings like medications_create_medication and medications_delete_medication. The added note 'Only provided fields are changed' clarifies the partial-update scope, reinforcing the purpose.

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 implies use for existing medication records by saying 'an existing medication record' and indicates partial-update behavior, but it does not explicitly contrast with create/delete alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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