hr_create_employeeCreate a new employee record. HR permission required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | A role key or name from THIS workspace - list them with hr_get_roles. Case-insensitive. | |
| No | |||
| position | No | ||
| full_name | Yes | ||
| last_name | No | ||
| department | No | ||
| first_name | No | ||
| employment_date | No | ||
| employment_type | No | Permanent | Permanent - Flextime | Hourly Paid (case-insensitive). | |
| weekly_capacity_percentage | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds a permission requirement but does not disclose side effects, duplicate handling, defaults, or response behavior. Some value beyond annotations, but limited.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded and the permission note is directly relevant.
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 10 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, this description is far too thin. It does not explain required inputs, expected outcomes, constraints, or how to interact with related HR tools.
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 only 20%, and the tool description mentions none of the 10 parameters. The agent receives no help understanding what full_name, role, employment_type, or the other fields mean beyond the sparse schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new employee record.' This clearly distinguishes it from hr_update_employee and hr_get_employees, and the scope is 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?
Provides only an authorization prerequisite ('HR permission required') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hr_update_employee. The usage context is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.
The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.
With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.
The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.