mah_set_active_patient

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the switch is confirmed with the portal before being stored, it survives restarts, it affects the signed-in browser tab via the bridge, and reads refuse rather than reverting if the user changes patients manually. These are non-obvious traits an agent needs and go well past the openWorld/idempotent hints.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the persistence and bridge details. Each sentence contributes useful information, though the browser-bridge clause is somewhat dense and could be tightened.

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 one-parameter state-setting tool with no output schema, the description covers persistence, revert behavior, and the bridge side effect adequately. The only minor gap is what the confirmation/return looks like, which is not strictly required.

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 single parameter is already documented as 'id from mah_list_patients'. The description adds semantic value by describing the special 'account holder' value that resets to the default, which the schema does not convey.

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+resource (set the active patient) and precisely defines its scope: it 'points every reading tool' at the selected patient. It ties the input directly to the sibling that produces it (mah_list_patients) and is clearly distinguishable from the many read-only listing siblings.

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?

Explains the context of use (to redirect reading tools) and how to revert to the default by selecting the account holder. It gives clear operational context, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or enumerate alternatives beyond the account-holder revert.

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