update_employee

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, whether missing fields are cleared, or any side effects, leaving the agent without crucial mutation semantics.

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 uninformative phrase 'Update employee'. This is under-specification rather than conciseness, as it fails to provide any substantive content that would justify its minimalism.

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 tool with 15 parameters, a nested address object, three enums, and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It provides zero information about required fields, partial-update behavior, or interaction with the nested structure, making it nearly impossible 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 13% (few properties have descriptions), yet the description text mentions no parameters at all. With 15 parameters, the description completely fails to compensate for the schema gaps, leaving the agent without meaning for most 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 'Update employee' verbatim restates the tool name and annotation title, providing no additional information. It is a tautology that fails to specify scope, fields, or distinguish from other update tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_employee or update_absence. The description only states the action 'Update' without any context, preconditions, or exclusions.

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