Update a subscription action
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actionId | Yes | The action ID to update | |
| __requestBody | Yes | Request body | |
| subscriptionId | Yes | The subscription that owns the action |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as how partial updates work, what happens if the action is not found, or any external side effects.
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, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, making it well structured for quick reading, even if it is terse.
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?
Given the tool has three required parameters, a nested request body, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what a 'subscription action' is, what the webhook update accomplishes, or what the tool returns upon success. The schema covers params, but broader domain context 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?
The schema fully documents all three parameters with descriptions and formats, including the nested webhook object and destination URL. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Update a subscription action' clearly specifies the verb (update) and the resource (subscription action), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, delete, get, list, pause, and unpause. However, it lacks details on what specific aspects of the action can be updated, which limits clarity.
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?
No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the action must already exist), nor does it point to sibling tools for related operations like creating or deleting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as signals-firmographics vs companies-enrich_firmographics, findEmail vs contacts-enrich_work_email, and monitors vs signal_subscriptions vs market_signals. While descriptions add some context, an agent could easily select the wrong tool due to the high similarity in function.
Most tools use a resource_subresource-action pattern, but there are inconsistent separators: underscores within some names, hyphens in others (e.g., scoring-assignment-bulk-create), and several camelCase exceptions (findEmail, findEmailBatchGet, getContactResearchByExternalID). This mixed convention makes the tool set feel unpredictable.
With 119 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical well-scoped range. Even for a comprehensive B2B data platform, the sheer number creates cognitive overload and increases the risk of incorrect tool selection.
The server covers an extensive range of operations: enrichment, lists, contacts, signals, subscriptions, monitors, and scoring. Nearly every resource has create, read, update, and delete or lifecycle equivalents, leaving very few practical gaps for the intended use case.
