Update specific fields on an existing HR case using its system ID and key-value pairs for modifications.
Update fields on an existing HR case (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Key-value pairs to update | |
| sys_id | Yes | System ID of the HR case |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true requirement, which is useful auth context. However, it does not disclose return values, error behavior, or side effects beyond what annotations provide.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes the prerequisite in parentheses. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 is complete enough for a simple update operation with full schema coverage and annotations, but it does not explain return values or allowed field keys, which could be ambiguous for an agent. It is adequate but not detailed.
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%, with both parameters clearly described. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states the tool updates fields on an existing HR case, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from creation (existing) and closure tools, and includes a prerequisite requirement.
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 for existing HR cases and specifies a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_hr_case or close_hr_case. It lacks clear when-to-use vs alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.