hcm_update_worker

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

The description adds a useful behavioral nuance beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation: the operation requires approval unless --write is used. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or what happens after the PATCH is submitted, so the behavioral picture remains partial.

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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler: 'PATCH a worker' states the core action immediately, and the parenthetical approval warning adds a useful constraint without bloat. It is concise, though arguably too terse for the information an agent actually needs.

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 no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a generic body schema, the agent is left with very little guidance about request shape, response format, or post-update behavior. The approval note is useful, but it does not compensate for the missing operational and data-shape context of a write operation.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level information. workerId and body are both undocumented, with body being a fully open additionalProperties object. The agent cannot infer what fields the body should contain, what workerId refers to beyond its name, or how the patch format should be structured.

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 ('PATCH') and a specific resource ('worker'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like hcm_get_worker and creation tools like hcm_create_worker. It is less specific about what updating a worker entails, but the core operation is unambiguous.

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 hcm_get_worker for reading, hcm_update_worker_assignment for assignments, or hcm_update_talent_profile for talent data. The only conditional note is about approval/--write, which is an operational detail, not a usage-selection criterion.

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