Update employee details in BambooHR by submitting an employee ID and a JSON payload of new field values. Field changes respect environment-configured allowed fields.
Update employee information. Fields may be restricted by BAMBOO_UPDATE_ALLOWED_FIELDS env var.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| employeeId | Yes | The employee ID (numeric) | |
| fieldsJson | Yes | JSON string mapping field names to new values, e.g. '{"mobilePhone": "555-1234"}' |
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 disclosure burden. It usefully exposes that allowed fields may be restricted by an environment variable, which is non-obvious. It does not explain behavior on restriction, partial updates, or error handling, leaving gaps.
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 primary action is front-loaded, and the environment-variable caveat is the only additional detail included and it 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?
For a simple two-parameter mutation, the schema plus description provide a workable calling contract. Still, with no annotations or output schema, an agent is left guessing about what happens when a field is restricted or what the response looks like.
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 schema already documents both parameters fully, including types and an example for fieldsJson. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but at 100% schema coverage that is acceptable.
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?
States the exact operation (Update) and resource (employee information), clearly distinguishing it from the many get- and report-oriented sibling tools. The action and purpose are 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 write intent is obvious, and the BAMBOO_UPDATE_ALLOWED_FIELDS note gives a relevant condition to consider before calling. However, it does not explicitly address when to use this tool instead of get-employee or how to handle restricted fields.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.