Update HR profile fields for a user (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
Update HR profile fields for a user (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | HR profile fields to update: department, manager, location, job_title | |
| user_sys_id | Yes | sys_id of the user whose profile to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / fields / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / fields / descriptionPrevious value: -"HR profile fields to update (e.g., {\"department\": \"Engineering\"})"New value: +"HR profile fields to update: department, manager, location, job_title"Input schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "department": {},
+ "job_title": {},
+ "location": {},
+ "manager": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds a genuinely useful operational prerequisite, WRITE_ENABLED=true, beyond the annotations. It does not describe partial-update semantics or failure behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both the action and the key WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite are stated immediately.
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 mutation tool, the definition covers the core action and an important execution prerequisite, and the schema fully documents parameters. It still omits how unspecified fields are treated, whether this is a partial merge, and how it differs from update_user, leaving some gaps an agent may need to resolve.
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%, including a nested fields object describing department, manager, location, and job_title. The description itself adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 HR profile fields for a user." It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this HR-profile-specific update from siblings like update_user or get_hr_profile, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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 parenthetical prerequisite "requires WRITE_ENABLED=true" gives important context for when the tool can be used. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over update_user or when to use get_hr_profile first, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.