advance_hr_case

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

The description describes a mutating operation ('advance', 'next state'), but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which indicates a read-only operation. This is a direct contradiction that could mislead an agent about the tool's side effects. The description provides no further behavioral context beyond the misleading advance action.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. It includes a useful prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) and a reference to ServiceNow HRSD parity, which adds context without excess verbosity. The structure is front-loaded with the action.

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?

The description lacks essential context for a mutation tool, such as return value, side effects beyond state change, or any prerequisites beyond WRITE_ENABLED. Critically, it fails to reconcile the contradiction with the readOnlyHint annotation, leaving the agent with incomplete and inconsistent information.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (case, state, work_notes), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but with high 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?

The description clearly identifies the action as 'advance' an HR case to its next state/stage, naming the resource and target table (sn_hr_core_case). It conveys the core function effectively, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like close_hr_case or update_hr_case, which are also possible state-changing operations.

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 implies usage by stating the operation ('advance to next state'), and the 'Parity with ServiceNow HRSD' reference gives some context, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. Usage is only implied, not clarified.

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