request_allergy_intolerance_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so well. It explicitly states rules around data integrity (use only user-provided data, no guessing), requires confirmation before deletion, and mandates links to the app resource. These go beyond typical generic HTTP tool descriptions.

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-organized with a clear opening, bulleted rules, and an Args section. It is somewhat verbose but each sentence contributes relevant information, making it appropriately sized for 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 generic HTTP request pattern and nested schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, key behavioral rules, and return type. It lacks details on authentication or error handling, but those are minor in this context and the provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 description explains all three parameters (method, path, body) with examples and clarifies that body is optional for POST/PUT, supplementing the schema's descriptions. It adds practical path examples (`/AllergyIntolerance?patient=Patient/123`) that help the agent construct valid requests.

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 states the tool 'Makes an HTTP request to the FHIR server' and 'perform CRUD operations only on the FHIR AllergyIntolerance resource,' clearly identifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling resource-specific tools and generic_resource by limiting scope to AllergyIntolerance.

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 usage context: use this tool for CRUD operations specifically on AllergyIntolerance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource-specific restriction makes the intended use unambiguous.

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