vocametrix_full_therapy_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the asynchronous polling behavior, the involvement of human approval, and the possible return values ('approved plan' or 'pending plan awaiting approval'). It does not mention permissions or side effects, but covers the main behavioral traits sufficiently.

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 two sentences long, efficiently covering the tool's purpose, process, output, and required follow-up action. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 (5 parameters, async with polling, human-in-the-loop) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the input requirements and return types. It could elaborate on the structure of a 'therapy plan', but the mention of sibling tools for approval partially compensates.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% with descriptions, the description adds context: it specifies that sessionMetadata must include 'patient_id' and wav2vecOutput must include 'summary_statistics', which are additional constraints not fully detailed in the schema. It also explains the polling and timeout parameters as controls for the async process.

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 is an 'end-to-end therapy plan generation' tool that 'generates a therapy plan from session data, polls until complete, and presents it for approval.' This specific verb-resource pairing differentiates it from sibling tools like vocametrix_generate_therapy_plan and vocametrix_approve_therapy_plan by combining both steps.

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 clear guidance: 'After reviewing, call vocametrix_approve_therapy_plan with approve, modify, or reject.' It indicates the post-use action and implies when to use this full workflow versus separate tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of individual generation or approval.

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