record_consultation

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a write operation ('Save') but omits important details such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens to existing notes, permission requirements, or error conditions. The behavior is minimally transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 complexity (4 required parameters, nested notes object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, side effects, or constraints on the input (e.g., required fields within notes). An agent would need to rely heavily on the schema alone, which lacks behavioral context.

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 0% and the description adds no information about any of the 4 parameters. The input schema is moderately structured (nested notes object), but the description provides no context for how to populate fields like 'symptoms', 'diagnosis', or 'medicines'. The agent must infer entirely from the schema, which is insufficient for complex nested parameters.

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 action ('Save finalized consultation notes') and the destination ('patient record'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'generate_medical_notes' (which likely creates drafts) and 'get_patient_history' (which retrieves records). The verb 'save' and resource 'finalized consultation notes' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_medical_notes' or 'schedule_followup'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., consultation must be completed), exclusions, or context for appropriate invocation.

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