mah_set_active_patient

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

Annotations only mark it as a non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description goes well beyond that: the switch is validated against the portal before storage, persists across restarts, affects the browser tab via the bridge, and reads refuse rather than silently reverting. This is the behavioral detail an agent actually needs.

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?

Front-loads purpose and follows with behavioral consequences; every sentence carries information. The final clause about reads refusing after an external patient change is dense and slightly convoluted, but it 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 a single-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers persistence, validation, reset behavior, and a non-obvious browser-bridge side effect. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already states 'id from mah_list_patients', so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by disclosing that passing the account holder id resets to the default, a special-value semantic 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 ('point every reading tool at one of the patients') and names the sibling (mah_list_patients) that supplies the input, so an agent can distinguish it from the many list/get siblings. It also clarifies the scope of effect (all reading tools), not just a stored field.

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?

Gives clear context: call it to switch the patient for reading tools, and select the account holder to revert to the default. It lacks explicit when-not-to-call guidance or a named alternative tool, so it stops just short of a 5.

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