formation_update_formationUpdateFormation applies a FieldMask-scoped patch to a formation. The caller supplies update_mask.paths to select the fields to replace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| formation | Yes | ||
| updateMask | Yes | Comma-separated field paths. | |
| formationId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| formation | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: only fields listed in update_mask.paths are replaced, clarifying the partial-update semantics beyond what the annotations state. It does not cover permissions or error handling, but this is useful added detail.
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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and key behavior.
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 large nested schema and three required parameters, the description covers the core mechanism but omits preconditions, list-field behavior, and relationship to specialized setter tools. The existence of an output schema reduces the need for return-value details, but operational guidance remains incomplete.
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 already documents updateMask as 'Comma-separated field paths' and provides a deeply nested formation structure. The description adds the relationship between formation fields and updateMask paths, but it doesn't provide examples or clarify how the formation object should be populated. With 67% schema description coverage, the description only moderately compensates.
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 identifies the operation: 'applies a FieldMask-scoped patch to a formation.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling creation, retrieval, and specialized setter tools by defining partial-update semantics.
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 implies use for partial updates by mentioning 'the caller supplies update_mask.paths to select the fields to replace,' but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over specialized setters like formation_set_company_name or provide exclusion criteria. It lacks an explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance.
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.
Multiple tool pairs are nearly identical (formation_extract_cap_table / formation_extract_cap_table_ocr; formation_start_formation / formation_create_formation), and several tools lack descriptions, making selection ambiguous. The scale of 202 tools with overlapping summaries (e.g., multiple cap-table summary tools) compounds the confusion.
Dominant snake_case `module_verb_noun` pattern, but with notable deviations: `captable_send_safe_for_signature` uses an inconsistent abbreviation, `check_company_name_availability` lacks a module prefix, and `get_list_` vs `list_` prefixes are mixed. Readable but not fully consistent.
202 tools is far beyond any reasonable surface for a single server, even a broad platform. The sheer number overwhelms and makes tool discovery impractical; many tools are peripheral (ads metrics) to the core formation purpose.
The domain appears well covered: formation flows, cap-table lifecycle (import, close, simulate), accounting (journal entries, periods, schedules), cards, documents, and transactions all have CRUD or lifecycle operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no card deletion, no counterparty creation), but they are unlikely to cause dead ends.