openemr-mcp

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 implies mutation via 'Update' and identifies which fields can change, but does not clarify partial update semantics (only flag_id is required), idempotency, error handling for invalid UUIDs, or clinical safety implications of changing severity in a medical context.

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, efficient sentence of nine words with no redundancy. The active verb leads the statement, immediately communicating the tool's function without filler content.

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?

For a four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description meets minimum viability by identifying updatable fields. However, gaps remain regarding error scenarios, the immutable nature of other fields, and clinical workflow impacts appropriate for a drug safety system in an EMR.

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 only 25% (flag_id described, three parameters undocumented). The description compensates by naming the three updatable fields (severity, description, status), but does not explain their semantics, valid enum values, or clinical meanings (e.g., what 'under_review' status implies), matching the calibration standard for low-coverage schemas.

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 identifies the action ('Update'), the resource ('drug safety flag'), and the specific mutable attributes ('severity, description, or status'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create' and 'delete' through the verb choice, though it could explicitly clarify this modifies existing records versus creating new ones.

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 siblings like 'openemr_drug_safety_flag_create' or when to prefer 'resolved' status over deletion. It also omits prerequisites such as needing a valid flag_id from 'openemr_drug_safety_flag_list'.

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