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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly marking the operation as 'WRITE', emphasizing that it creates a 'REAL' record in the 'live Cliniko practice', and providing the HTTP endpoint. This informs the agent that the call has real side effects. It does not discuss irreversibility or duplicate handling, but the destructiveHint annotation already signals side-effect risk.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the critical write/side-effect information, states requirements, and includes the endpoint. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 flat schema and complete parameter documentation, the description is adequate for invoking the tool. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention what the API returns (e.g., the created patient's ID), which an agent would likely need for subsequent steps such as creating an appointment.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters. The description only restates that first_name and last_name are required, which is already encoded in the schema's required array. It adds no extra semantic detail about formats, defaults, or relationships between fields.

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 a specific action: 'creates a REAL new patient record in the live Cliniko practice.' It identifies the verb, the resource (patient), and the fact that this is a write operation. The POST /patients detail further disambiguates it from the many read/list siblings.

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 states the mandatory prerequisites ('Requires first_name + last_name'), which helps the agent know when it can be called. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention scenarios where it should not be used. Usage is implied by the operation name rather than spelled out.

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