submit_intake

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool replaces prior intake data and regenerates a doctor brief as a side effect. It also instructs to record patient statements verbatim and avoid interpretation, adding important non-obvious constraints. However, it doesn't discuss error handling or response format, though the output schema may cover that.

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 well-structured: it opens with a clear purpose, then gives usage timing, behavioral guidance, parameter definitions, and an example. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and the format makes it easy to scan. The length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 has 7 parameters, a side effect (regenerating the brief), and no annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: when to use it, what to collect, how to record data, resubmission behavior, and an example. Since an output schema exists, it need not explain return values. The description is fully self-contained for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so exceptionally well by providing a dedicated Args section that explains each parameter's meaning and source, e.g., 'appointment_id: From get_appointments or book_appointment,' and gives an illustrative example. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Record pre-visit intake for an appointment and regenerate the doctor brief.' The verb 'record' and resource 'pre-visit intake for an appointment' are specific, and the additional detail 'regenerate the doctor brief' distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_intake.

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 'Collect this after booking,' providing clear timing guidance. It also notes that 'Re-submitting replaces the previous intake, so it is safe to call again,' implying a usage pattern. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for exclusions, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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