update

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 effectively explains that this is a destructive write operation ('replacing an existing resource instance's content'), mentions that the payload must include all required fields and any data to preserve, describes optional conditional updates and custom operations, and notes the return value includes either the updated resource or error details. It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication requirements, but provides substantial operational 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 appropriately sized at three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, and ending with return value information. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by combining some concepts about optional parameters.

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 complex mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the destructive nature, parameter interactions, and return values. It covers the essential context needed to use the tool correctly, though could benefit from mentioning authentication or error handling specifics.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of each parameter: 'type' identifies the FHIR resource, 'id' is the logical ID, 'payload' must contain complete resource data for replacement, 'searchParam' enables conditional updates, and 'operation' allows custom operations. This provides practical guidance on how parameters work together.

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 tool performs a FHIR 'update' interaction by replacing an existing resource's content with a provided payload. It specifies the verb ('replacing'), resource ('FHIR resource instance'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning it's for overwriting entire resources when you know the logical ID, unlike create (new resources) or read/search (retrieval operations).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you need to overwrite a resource's data in its entirety, such as correcting or completing a record, and you already know the resource's logical id') and mentions conditional updates and custom operations as optional use cases. It distinguishes from siblings by implying this is for full replacements rather than partial updates or other operations.

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