Assign a new manager or HR representative to a user in SuccessFactors by providing userId and optional managerId or hrId.
Update manager and/or HR assignment for a user in SuccessFactors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hrId | No | Optional: New HR User ID to assign | |
| userId | Yes | User ID to update | |
| managerId | No | Optional: New manager User ID to assign |
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 alone must disclose behavior. It only says it updates assignments, which is already clear from the name. It does not mention whether the update is partial or full, whether existing assignments are overwritten, required permissions, or any side effects. There is no contradiction with annotations, but minimal behavioral detail.
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 is front-loaded with the action and wastes no words. It is maximaly concise while still conveying the core purpose.
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 mutation tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential intent: updating manager and/or HR assignment for a user. However, without annotations or an output schema, it does not clarify expected response behavior, constraints, or whether both fields can be updated in one call. It is barely adequate but not complete.
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 baseline is 3. The phrase 'and/or' hints that either managerId or hrId can be provided, but the schema already communicates the optionality clearly. No additional parameter semantics are added by the description.
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 uses the specific verb 'update' and identifies the exact resource: manager and/or HR assignment for a user in SuccessFactors. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like update_user_odata, so it misses the top score.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description gives no indication of when this tool should be chosen over siblings like get_manager_hr or update_user_odata, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.