Update fields on an existing HR case (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
Update fields on an existing HR case (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Key-value pairs to update | |
| sys_id | Yes | System ID of the HR case |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / fields / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "assigned_to": {},
+ "assignment_group": {},
+ "close_code": {},
+ "close_notes": {},
+ "description": {},
+ "hr_service": {},
+ "priority": {},
+ "short_description": {},
+ "state": {},
+ "subject_person": {},
+ "work_notes": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds a useful operational prerequisite, WRITE_ENABLED=true, but does not explain partial-update behavior, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or what happens on invalid field keys.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The prerequisite is included efficiently, though the definition is sparse for a mutation tool with a nested fields object.
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?
Annotations cover safety traits and the schema covers parameters, so the description need not explain everything. Still, for an update tool with nested updatable fields and no output schema, it should clarify partial-update semantics and expected response behavior more fully.
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 100%, so sys_id and the fields object are documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond the schema: it does not mention the whitelist of updatable fields or clarify how key-value pairs are applied.
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 states a specific verb and resource: update fields on an existing HR case. 'Existing' implicitly distinguishes it from create_hr_case, but it does not explicitly differentiate from close_hr_case, update_hr_profile, or other update siblings.
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?
It gives one important usage condition, WRITE_ENABLED=true, and implies use when modifying fields on a case. However, it does not say when to prefer close_hr_case, natural_language_update, or other update tools, and offers no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.