Initiates the offboarding process for a worker by capturing the worker ID, last day, and reason to manage HR transitions.
Initiate the offboarding process for a worker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | Additional offboarding notes | |
| reason | Yes | Reason for offboarding | |
| last_day | Yes | Last day of work (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| worker_id | Yes | The worker ID to offboard | |
| rehire_eligible | No | Whether worker is eligible for rehire |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Only a title annotation is present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for what is clearly a consequential mutation. It says nothing about what 'the offboarding process' actually does (access revocation, final payment, termination of record), whether it is reversible, or what permissions are required. The word 'initiate' hints at a multi-step process but the side effects remain undisclosed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler text. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for the complexity of the operation (captured under contextual completeness).
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 high-impact worker offboarding mutation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence is insufficient. An agent gets no information on side effects, reversibility, permissions, or expected outcomes, leaving it unable to judge invocation risk.
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% and each of the 5 parameters is documented in the schema (worker_id, last_day, reason, notes, rehire_eligible). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('offboarding') and resource ('a worker'), so the agent knows this is a worker lifecycle operation distinct from terminate_contract or update_worker. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling worker tools, so it does not reach a 5.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., worker must be active), and no alternatives or exclusions relative to siblings like update_worker or terminate_contract. The agent is left to infer all usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.