Skip a dose

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

Given readOnlyHint=false already signals a write, the description adds meaningful side-effect context: skipping a critical medication alerts the caregiver. It also scopes the action to a deliberate, next-dose skip, which helps avoid accidental or retroactive misuse. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core action, the optional reason, and a relevant side effect with no filler. The most decision-critical information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema exists and the parameters are simple, so return values do not need description-level detail. However, the lack of explicit routing against log_dose and the vagueness around medication identification make the definition slightly incomplete for an agent choosing among these sibling tools.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 33%, the description partially compensates by marking 'reason' as optional and grounding 'medication' as the next due dose. It does not specify how medication should be identified or address elderId beyond what the schema already says, leaving the compensation incomplete.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and a clear resource ('skipping the next due dose of a medication'), while also noting the optional reason and caregiver alert. It distinguishes itself semantically from log_dose by emphasizing a deliberate skip, though it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling.

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 the use case—an intentional skip of the next due dose—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over log_dose or when not to use it. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing, so an agent must infer the boundary from context.

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