update_salary_record

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden: it correctly flags this as a write to sensitive accounting/HR data and discloses that the body is sent verbatim (no validation or transformation). It omits whether the update is partial or full, what permissions are required, and what is returned.

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 the consequence warning. The long documentation URL is justified because `data` is otherwise undocumented, though it makes the sentence heavy.

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 two-parameter mutation with a freeform body, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the biggest unknown (body field semantics via the docs link). It still leaves the agent guessing about partial-update behavior and the response shape, so it is 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 coverage is 100%, but `data` is a freeform nested object whose allowed fields are not defined anywhere in the schema. The description compensates by pointing to the exact API reference section (Registros de nómina → Actualizar) that defines those fields, which is real value beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource (updates a payroll record in Holded) and tags it WRITE, so it is distinguishable from create_salary_record, get_salary_record and delete_salary_record. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the verb+resource combination is 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' prefix and the warning that it 'affects accounting and HR data' imply this is for deliberate mutation of an existing record, which is useful context. However, there is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g. fetching current values first via get_salary_record) or when to prefer alternative flows.

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