Add a new employee to the HRMS system using name, email, and optional manager ID. Returns a confirmation message.
Add a new employee to the HRMS system.
:param emp_name: Employee name
:param manager_id: Manager ID (optional)
:return: Confirmation message
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| emp_name | Yes | ||
| manager_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about permissions, duplicate-email handling, validation failures, or side effects like credential/notification creation. Worse, it asserts manager_id is optional when the schema lists it as required, so the description actively misleads about how the write behaves, even though this is a schema rather than annotation conflict.
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 opening sentence is front-loaded and tight, but the docstring scaffolding (:param:, :return:) is boilerplate that earns little value, particularly the return note since an output schema already documents the confirmation response. Size is acceptable; information density is low.
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 three-parameter required-write tool with no annotations, the description should at minimum cover every required parameter and basic behavioral expectations. It instead misses email, misstates manager_id's optionality, and supplies only a return line that the output schema already renders redundant.
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, and it does not: it documents emp_name and manager_id only in tautological terms ("Employee name", "Manager ID") and omits the required email parameter entirely. The optionality claim on manager_id also contradicts the required list.
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 first line gives a specific verb and resource ("Add a new employee to the HRMS system"), which is unambiguous against siblings like get_employee_details. It does not explicitly differentiate from other mutation tools (create_ticket, apply_leave), but the resource is distinct enough that no confusion is likely.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_employee_details or send_email, and no prerequisites (e.g. pre-existing manager record) are mentioned. The only context is the implicit name of the tool itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.