Update a user's HR profile fields, such as department or job title, by supplying their sys_id and the field-value pairs to change.
Update HR profile fields for a user (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | HR profile fields to update (e.g., {"department": "Engineering"}) | |
| user_sys_id | Yes | sys_id of the user whose profile to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true requirement, which is a useful behavioral constraint not in the annotations. However, it does not disclose details about partial updates or side effects, but this is partially covered by idempotentHint.
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 that states the core action and a key requirement without any fluff. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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 tool is simple with only 2 parameters, both documented, and annotations provide safety/idempotency context. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED precondition. The absence of output schema and specific return behavior is a minor gap, but the description is sufficient for a straightforward update 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 coverage is 100%: both user_sys_id and fields have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so 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 'Update HR profile fields for a user' clearly identifies the action (update) and specific resource (HR profile), distinguishing it from read-only get_hr_profile and generic update_user. It also adds a crucial precondition (WRITE_ENABLED=true), making the purpose 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?
The description gives a clear context (updating HR profile) and notes a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true), but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like update_user or other update tools. Usage is implied but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.