feegow_create_patient

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool writes data and returns a patient_id, but does not mention idempotency, error handling, or side effects. It is adequate but not detailed.

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 very concise with two clear parts: the action and the write indicator. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes helpful brackets for categorization. No superfluous information.

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 mentions the return value (patient_id) but lacks details on error conditions, such as duplicate CPF, and does not specify if the operation is idempotent. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no further meaning beyond stating the tool creates a patient, not enhancing parameter semantics beyond baseline.

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 it creates a new patient and returns the patient_id, specifying the verb 'cria' (creates) and resource 'paciente'. It explicitly marks as write operation (ESCRITA) and distinguishes from sibling list/search/edit patient 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 indicates this tool alters data and requires FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true, providing a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like feegow_edit_patient 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.