request_patient_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral rules: not guessing or auto-filling data, asking for confirmation before deletion, and providing app (not api) links in the final response. It also states the return value is a JSON response. However, it omits authentication, error handling, and row-level side effects, though the CRUD nature is clear.

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 slightly long but well-structured into sections for purpose, rules, and args. Every sentence earns its place, including the important deletion confirmation rule and the no-guessing rule. It remains accessible despite the length.

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 simple structure (one parameter with a nested schema) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core needs: purpose, usage rules, and parameter details. It does not explain error handling or auth, but for a CRUD tool with clear rules and an output schema, this is reasonably complete.

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 input schema has no description for the top-level 'request' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains method, path, and body with examples, which adds meaning. However, it presents these as top-level arguments rather than nested within a 'request' object, creating a structural mismatch that could mislead an agent.

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 makes HTTP requests to the FHIR server for the Patient resource only, using the verb 'perform CRUD operations'. It explicitly restricts usage to the Patient resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like request_observation_resource or request_generic_resource.

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 'Use this tool to perform CRUD operations only on the FHIR Patient resource', providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other resources, but the resource-specific restriction implies exclusions. Rules for creating/updating/deleting add valuable usage context.

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