hr.update_employee

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that any field can be modified, implying potentially destructive changes, but it doesn't describe consequences, reversibility, required permissions, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and scope, with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse.

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 two parameters (one a free-form object), no output schema, and no annotations. The description omits useful context such as what the tool returns, how errors (e.g., invalid employee ID) are handled, or whether updates are transactional. For a tool that can modify arbitrary fields, this leaves the agent without enough information to anticipate outcomes.

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 already describes both parameters clearly: employee_id as an integer to identify the employee, and fields as an object of key-value pairs to update. The description adds example field names but doesn't explain the format, nesting, or validation rules of the fields object. With 100% schema coverage, the description's incremental value is minimal, warranting a baseline score.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('employee's record'), and lists example modifiable fields such as name, role, salary, and department. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the verb+resource pairing makes the tool's 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of appropriate scenarios. It only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected over other HR tools like search_employees or run_payroll_report.

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