Updates one task in the tenant CRM; only the fields you send change. Needs crm:write on the organization. A foreign or missing id answers 404.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | title | |
| status | No | status | open |
| deal_id | No | deal id | |
| task_id | Yes | task_id | |
| organization_id | Yes | organization_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / status / enumPrevious value: -[
- "open",
- "done",
- "cancelled"
-]New value: +[
+ "open",
+ "done",
+ "canceled"
+]Input schema / properties / status / defaultAdded value: +"open"Input schema / properties / status / enumAdded value: +[
+ "open",
+ "done",
+ "cancelled"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial-update semantics, the required permission ('Needs crm:write on the organization'), and error behavior ('foreign or missing id answers 404'). This is substantial coverage for a mutation tool, though it omits the response format and idempotency details.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the permission and error constraints. Every word contributes essential information.
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 5-parameter, 2-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers permission, error behavior, and partial update semantics. Missing is any indication of the response (e.g., whether it returns the updated task), but this is not critical for invocation. It does not need to repeat schema fields.
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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, but they are bare (e.g., 'title', 'status'). The description adds the crucial partial-update semantics (only sent fields change), which informs how all optional parameters behave. However, it does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
Clearly states it 'Updates one task in the tenant CRM' and adds partial-update behavior ('only the fields you send change'). The mention of 'tenant' distinguishes it from platform-level siblings, and the 404 error for foreign/missing id adds specificity. No ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance. The sibling list includes commsharbor_platform_crm_tasks_update and other task tools, but the description never contrasts them or states when to prefer this one. The 'tenant' qualifier is implicit, not an explicit usage instruction.
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.