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

Beyond annotations, it discloses important behavior: only provided fields change, department_ids replaces the current department list, positions names may be created, and filled-in names cannot be cleared. It also states the return shape as an updated compact employee record, adding meaningful behavioral 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 'WRITE:' prefix is front-loaded and immediately signals mutation. The paragraph is dense but organized around action, typical uses, constraints, and return value, with no filler.

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 24-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains partial update semantics, critical side effects like department replacement, a platform constraint around clearing names, and what is returned.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented structurally. The description adds valuable semantic detail by explaining partial-update behavior, department_ids replacement semantics, and creation of unknown position names, going beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Change fields of one existing employee (partial update...).' It clearly distinguishes this update operation from create/get/list siblings by emphasizing partial updates to an existing employee.

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?

It provides concrete typical uses: setting status to absent or retired with a resignation date, correcting contact fields, moving departments, and changing positions. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool versus siblings like smarthr_create_employee, but the usage context is clear.

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