update-automationChange an automation's name, description or settings, or replace its steps and connections (same step types as create-automation). Passing steps or connections replaces the whole graph; the previous steps can't be restored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Automation ID (aut_xxx). | |
| name | No | ||
| steps | No | ||
| settings | No | ||
| connections | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds specific destruction semantics: passing steps or connections replaces the whole graph and the previous steps cannot be restored. It does not explain authentication needs, rate limits, or whether omitting name/description/settings preserves existing values.
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, zero waste: the first states what can change, and the second front-loads the destructive replacement behavior. The create-automation reference is compact and useful rather than repetitive.
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 complex nested mutation with no output schema and only 17% schema description coverage, the description covers the biggest risk, graph replacement, but leaves important context implicit: partial-update behavior for name/description/settings, the relationship between steps and connections, and whether settings are merged or replaced.
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 low at 17%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains that steps and connections replace the entire graph and that step types match create-automation, but it adds little about id, name, description, settings, or whether unspecified fields are preserved.
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 names a specific verb and resource: changing an automation's name, description or settings, or replacing its steps and connections. It also references create-automation for the step types, so an agent can distinguish this as the update path rather than creation.
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?
It implies use on an existing automation and warns about graph replacement, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like create-automation, delete-automation, pause-automation, or start-automation. The reference to create-automation is only for step types, not for routing between create and update.
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.