Modify an existing worker's profile details, including name, job title, department, manager, and start date, to keep HR records current in Deel.
Update an existing worker's profile information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_title | No | Job title | |
| last_name | No | Last name | |
| worker_id | Yes | The worker ID to update | |
| first_name | No | First name | |
| manager_id | No | Manager worker ID | |
| start_date | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| department_id | No | Department ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only annotation is a title, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the update is partial or full-replacement, whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved, what permissions are required, or whether changes are reversible.
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 filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than optimal density.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations beyond a title and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. An agent cannot determine update semantics (partial vs. full), permission requirements, or what the call returns.
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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters (names, job_title, manager_id, etc.). The phrase 'profile information' loosely frames the updatable fields but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing worker's profile information'), so an agent can immediately tell this mutates a worker record rather than reading, listing, or offboarding one. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like invite_worker or offboard_worker.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as invite_worker (new hire), offboard_worker (termination), or get_worker (read). No prerequisites or preconditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.