request_condition_resource

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 specifies that only user-provided data should be used, not to guess or auto-fill missing data, to ask for confirmation before deleting, and to provide app links rather than api links. These are critical safety and usage behaviors beyond basic CRUD.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, bullet-point rules, and an Args list. It is somewhat long but every section contributes value. The main purpose is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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?

The description provides a solid overview of the tool's purpose, parameters, return value, and special rules. It could include more about response format or error handling, but for a FHIR CRUD tool, the given information is sufficient for basic invocation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for detailed return descriptions.

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?

The description includes an Args section that lists method, path, and body with examples and constraints, such as body being optional for POST/PUT. Although the schema provides some descriptions for these inner fields, the outer 'request' parameter is not self-explanatory, and the description's explicit examples add meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 makes HTTP requests and is specifically for CRUD operations on the FHIR Condition resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like request_patient_resource, which target other resources.

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 explicitly says to use it 'only on the FHIR Condition resource', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also provides operational rules for create/update/delete. However, it does not directly name alternative tools for other resources, though the 'only on' phrasing implies when not to use it.

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