oncofiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., if event_id doesn't exist), or response format. The description lacks critical context for a mutation tool, leaving gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence earns its place by adding necessary information, though the parameter descriptions are brief and could be slightly more detailed without sacrificing conciseness. No redundant or wasted text is present.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error cases) and usage guidelines. For a mutation tool without annotations, this leaves notable gaps, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema. It adds significant value by listing all four parameters (event_id, title, notes, metadata) with brief semantics: event_id is 'the treatment event ID to update,' and the others are 'new' values that are 'optional.' It also clarifies that metadata is a 'JSON string.' This effectively documents the parameters, though it could provide more detail on formats or constraints.

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 verb ('update') and resource ('treatment event') along with specific fields that can be modified ('title, notes, or metadata'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_treatment_event' (creation) and 'delete_treatment_event' (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more differentiated from other update tools like 'update_document_category' or 'update_patient_context'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing event ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new events), or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_treatment_event' for viewing or 'delete_treatment_event' for removal. Usage is implied only through the action 'update,' with no explicit context or exclusions provided.

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