update_hr_case

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

The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED requirement beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description confirms mutation. It does not contradict annotations and adds value.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the precondition in parentheses. No wasted words.

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 simple update tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it does and a key prerequisite. The sibling list is large but the description is sufficiently specific to HR cases.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the tool description adds no new semantic meaning. The description mentions 'fields' generically but does not enhance schema documentation.

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 the verb 'Update fields' and the resource 'an existing HR case', and adds a precondition 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'close_hr_case' and 'create_hr_case'.

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 mentions a precondition (WRITE_ENABLED=true) which gives context for use. While it does not explicitly list when to use vs alternatives, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide. It lacks explicit exclusions but provides adequate guidance.

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