tebra_update_patient

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It confirms mutation (update) and partial updates, but fails to mention required permissions, side effects, error handling, or what the response contains. Agents are left unaware of whether the updated patient object is returned or if validation occurs.

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 a single succinct sentence that immediately states the verb and resource, with no redundant or filler content. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is markedly underdeveloped. It omits what the tool returns, error conditions, idempotency, and prerequisites. An agent has insufficient context to confidently invoke this tool without additional documentation.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds the crucial behavior that only provided fields change (partial update), which is not captured in the schema. This provides meaningful context beyond the static parameter list.

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 tool updates an existing patient, distinguishing it from create (tebra_create_patient) and read (tebra_get_patient) tools. It also specifies partial update behavior ('Only provided fields will be changed'), adding unique value beyond the name.

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 that only fields to be changed should be provided, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., create or get patient). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context from sibling tool names.

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