Update existing or create new employee records in SuccessFactors by sending key-value user data for a specified user ID. Creating new users requires additional permissions.
Update or create employee/user data in SuccessFactors. Note: Creating new users may require additional permissions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | User data fields to update (key-value pairs) | |
| userId | Yes | User ID to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal that the tool mutates data and can create new records, and it adds a useful permission caveat. However, it does not describe side effects, failure behavior, whether existing data is overwritten or merged, or what the response looks like.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose and the second adds a necessary caveat. The information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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 has no annotations and no output schema, and the description leaves important ambiguity around the create/update trigger, required permissions, and response behavior. An agent cannot safely determine how to create a user versus update one, making the definition incomplete for confident invocation.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics; notably, it does not clarify how 'create' works when the schema only provides userId and data, which is a meaningful gap.
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 clear action ('Update or create') and a specific resource ('employee/user data in SuccessFactors'). However, the dual update/create scope is slightly ambiguous and it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like update_user_odata.
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 use this tool versus alternatives such as update_user_odata, manage_user_fields, or the get_* tools. The permission note hints that creating users is special, but it does not explain when this tool is preferred or should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.