request_family_member_history_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses important behaviors: no auto-fill of missing data, mandatory user confirmation for deletions, and the requirement to return app links. However, it omits details like authentication, error handling, or rate limits, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 structured with a brief opening, a rules list, and an args section. It is longer than average but every sentence adds useful information. The rules are clear and easy to follow, though the args section could be more concise by matching the schema hierarchy.

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 covers the tool's resource scope, core behaviors, and return format, which is good. However, the mismatch between the described arguments and the actual nested schema is a significant gap. It lacks a concrete example of a full JSON request object, making end-to-end invocation less certain.

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 schema's top-level parameter 'request' has no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It lists method, path, and body with examples and says body is optional, which adds value. However, it presents them as flat arguments, not nested under 'request', which contradicts the actual schema structure and could mislead an agent into constructing an invalid invocation.

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 an HTTP request to the FHIR server and limits usage to CRUD operations on the FamilyMemberHistory resource. The phrase 'only on the FHIR FamilyMemberHistory resource' explicitly distinguishes it from sibling resource-specific tools.

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 provides explicit usage rules: it is for CRUD on FamilyMemberHistory, and it gives specific behavioral guidance (e.g., use only user-provided data, do not guess, ask confirmation before delete, provide app links). This clearly states when to use and when to confirm, though it does not name alternatives beyond the resource scope.

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