feegow_associate_account

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

The description discloses that it is a mutation operation requiring FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true, and mentions the response returns the patient with the account linked. However, it does not cover idempotency, error conditions, or side effects beyond the mutation flag. Given no annotations, the description provides moderate behavioral insight.

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 concise and well-structured: it provides the domain tag, core action, mutation flag, configuration requirement, and response hint in a few sentences. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, mutation nature, auth config, and a hint about the response. It lacks error handling or detailed response structure but is largely complete for such a simple operation.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (account and association IDs) with 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning or context about these parameters, so it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 associates a financial account to a patient/type (operação de mutação) and indicates it is a write operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like feegow_create_account that might create accounts rather than associate them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative financial tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as requiring an existing patient and account, or 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.