update_hr_profile

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

Annotations indicate mutability, no destruction, idempotency, and open schema. The description adds a behavioral constraint: it requires WRITE_ENABLED=true, which is a precondition beyond annotations. It does not detail side effects or error states, but the idempotency hint is already present. The added requirement provides useful transparency.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action and a key precondition. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter update tool with existing annotations, the description is mostly adequate but lacks some context. It does not explain the return value (no output schema), validation of the fields object, or behavior when WRITE_ENABLED is false. Given the open-world hint, more guidance on acceptable field names would be helpful but is missing.

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% and both parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics for the parameters beyond restating 'HR profile fields'. The precondition is tool-level, not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not degrade or enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update', the resource 'HR profile fields', and targets a specific user. It includes a precondition ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which adds specificity. The tool name and description distinguish it from sibling update_* tools, as it focuses on HR profile fields rather than general user updates.

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 description mentions a requirement (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_user. The context implies it is for HR-specific fields, but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided. Sibling tools such as update_user or update_hr_case are not referenced.

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