gerent365_update_employee

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It reveals that only provided fields are updated (partial update), which is useful. However, it does not mention permissions, error handling, or the behavior if the employee ID does not exist, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently communicates the action and the partial-update behavior.

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?

With 9 parameters, 1 required, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, field constraints, or relationships between fields (e.g., position vs positionId), making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 22%. The description does not elaborate on any parameter beyond saying that only provided fields are sent. Most parameters (e.g., role, email, positionId) lack explanatory context, so the description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Actualiza los datos de un empleado existente' (updates data of an existing employee), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_employee and delete_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?

The description does not mention when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only says 'Solo se envían los campos provistos' (only provided fields are sent), implying partial updates, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it or what alternatives exist for PIN updates or other employee-related operations.

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