feegow_edit_patient

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it is a write operation ('altera dados') and requires a specific environment variable. Missing details: response format, idempotency, error handling (e.g., what happens if paciente_id not found), and whether updates are partial or full.

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 a single sentence plus a bracketed note, immediately stating the purpose and usage. Every word is functional, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 basic purpose and usage but omits important context: there is no output schema, so the agent doesn't know what the tool returns (e.g., updated patient object or success message). It also doesn't mention whether all fields are optional beyond paciente_id, or validation rules. Given the tool's complexity (nested body, many fields), more context 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates that one should send paciente_id and fields to change. The schema already describes each parameter adequately, so the description adds no unique 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 explicitly states 'Edita os dados de um paciente existente' (edits data of an existing patient), clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like feegow_create_patient (create) and feegow_search_patient (search) by specifying it's for editing existing records.

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 says 'Envie paciente_id e os campos a alterar' (send patient ID and fields to change), providing clear usage instructions. It also includes a note about requiring FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true, which helps the agent know when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'use this instead of feegow_create_patient for updates').

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