update_employee

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden itself, and it does disclose the key trait that `data` is forwarded verbatim with no validation or field mapping, plus that it mutates a "real" record. It stops short of stating permission requirements, whether the update is partial or a full overwrite of unspecified fields, or what the response contains.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation type and resource, with no filler. The external-doc pointer is long but earns its place by naming the exact section (Empleados → Actualizar).

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 an unannotated mutation tool with a free-form nested body and no output schema, the description covers the operation and body semantics but leaves gaps: no guidance on which fields are updatable, whether omitted fields are preserved, or what errors/lookups (e.g., invalid employeeId) look 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: it explains that the free-form `data` object is sent verbatim as the request body and points to the Holded developer reference for the field list. That compensates for the nested-object parameter being otherwise opaque.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("WRITE: updates a real employee record in Holded (API v2)"), which is clearly distinct from adjacent siblings such as update_employee_contract or update_employee_time. It doesn't explicitly say how it differs from those, but the noun phrase is precise enough for correct selection.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of prerequisites or alternatives. The "WRITE:" prefix implies a mutation context, but an agent must infer that this is for existing employees versus create_employee, and nothing warns against using it for contract or time-record updates.

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