update_employee

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Update' implies mutation and 'false to deactivate; true to reactivate' for the active flag adds useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, whether this requires auth, whether changes are reversible, or what response looks like. With zero annotation coverage, this is only lightly covered.

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 reasonably compact with front-loaded purpose statement followed by a parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, though the reliance on update_customer for address details means some of the burden is outsourced.

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?

There's an output schema present, so return values need not be explained. The description covers parameter semantics and notes a key difference from the sibling update_customer (no notes column). For a parameter set of 5 with 1 required param, the coverage is adequate but relies on cross-reference to update_customer for full understanding of the address structure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 5 parameters. The description says 'id: Employee ID (e.g. "000001")', 'name: New display name', 'currency: New default ISO currency code', 'active: false to deactivate; true to reactivate', and 'address: Partial address dict'. These map well to the schema but the address and currency semantics are deferred to update_customer ('see update_customer'), leaving the reader dependent on another tool's docs.

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 'Update an existing employee' with specific verb+resource. It also notes what's omitted (no 'notes' column) and distinguishes from sibling update_customer. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast against update_vendor, update_job, or other update tools, so it's clear but could be more distinguishing.

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 references update_customer as a template ('otherwise identical to update_customer'), which provides implied usage context but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does clarify that 'notes' works for customers but not employees, a useful exclusionary detail.

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