request_generic_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond basic HTTP request semantics by stating that missing data must not be guessed, deletion requires user confirmation, and final responses must include app links rather than API links. These are useful behavioral constraints. It does not cover error handling or authorization, but the provided rules are substantial.

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: a purpose sentence, a usage condition, concise numbered rules, an Args section, and a Returns line. It is front-loaded with the most important information and avoids fluff. The Args section duplicates some schema content but is acceptable for a generic tool.

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 tool is a generic FHIR CRUD operation, and the description covers purpose, scope, safety rules, parameters, and return type. An output schema exists, so return details are already structured. It lacks error handling details and concrete resource path examples, but for a fallback generic tool, the description is reasonably complete.

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 top-level schema parameter 'request' has no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section lists method, path, and body with brief explanations, and clarifies that body is optional for POST/PUT. However, this adds little beyond the nested schema's existing field descriptions, and it does not explain path formatting or provide examples. It is adequate but not rich.

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 explicitly says it performs 'CRUD operations on any FHIR resource'. It distinguishes from siblings by adding 'ONLY if the other tools are not applicable', which positions it as a fallback for any resource not covered by 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool ... ONLY if the other tools are not applicable'. It also provides practical rules for deletion (ask for confirmation) and data integrity (do not guess or auto-fill). It does not name the specific alternative sibling tools, so it is slightly less explicit than the high standard, but the conditional is clear.

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