Update an existing community on Compoid. Only supply the fields you want to change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| website | No | ||
| visibility | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| community_id | Yes | ||
| member_policy | No | ||
| record_policy | No | ||
| community_type | No | ||
| curation_policy | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'update' and partial updates, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as validation, side effects, permissions, or whether the response confirms changes. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded. Both sentences earn their place, with no waste. However, it may be too terse, missing opportunities to add useful context without bloating length.
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?
With 10 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, the description is insufficiently complete for a complex mutation tool. It does not cover field meanings, prerequisites (e.g., community_id existence), or behavior on invalid inputs. Although an output schema exists, the description should still provide more operational context.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by indicating optional fields are partial updates, but does not explain any individual parameter semantics (e.g., slug uniqueness, visibility options, member_policy values). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's field names.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'update' with resource 'community on Compoid', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like Compoid_create_community and Compoid_update_record. It states exactly 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?
Provides clear guidance on partial updates ('Only supply the fields you want to change'), implying that omitted fields remain unchanged. It does not explicitly compare to create or other update tools, but the context is clear enough for most use cases.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair (create/get/update/search for communities and records, plus upload/download for files). No two tools have overlapping purposes; even get_record_details and download_files are clearly separated by metadata vs file retrieval.
All tools follow a consistent 'Compoid_<verb>_<noun>' pattern in snake_case, e.g., create_community, get_record_details, search_records. The prefix and verb-noun structure are uniform across the entire set, making the naming predictable.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing two core resources (communities and records) plus file operations. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, and the count feels appropriate rather than bloated or thin.
The server provides create, read, update, and search for both communities and records, along with upload and download for files. The only notable gap is the absence of delete operations for either resource, but the core lifecycle (search, create, retrieve, update) is well covered.