create_patient_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation ('create and persist') but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing alerts), authorization needs, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise with no superfluous information, though structured formatting (e.g., parameter list) could improve readability.

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 has three parameters with low schema coverage and no output schema or annotations. The description does not hint at the return value (e.g., created alert details) or error handling. Given its complexity as a creation tool, more context is needed for safe invocation.

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?

Only one of three parameters (patient_id) has a schema description. The description adds context for risk_threshold and lookback_days by linking them to the threshold-crossing logic, but does not fully explain their meanings or valid values. It complements the schema modestly but leaves gaps.

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 action (create and persist alerts) and the condition (patients whose rehabilitation risk or declines cross thresholds). It distinguishes from siblings like calculate_patient_risk_scores, but the term 'declines' is slightly ambiguous.

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 implies when to use (when thresholds are crossed) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, such as requiring risk scores or decline identification first.

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