update_consulting_engagementUpdate mutable fields on an owned consulting engagement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| client_id | No | ||
| objective | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| engagement_id | Yes | ||
| sales_deal_ref | No | ||
| target_end_date | No | ||
| accounting_run_ref | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "text": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "text"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only 'mutable fields' on an 'owned' engagement can be changed, which is useful beyond the annotations but does not explain what gets destroyed, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally efficient. However, for a tool with 9 undocumented parameters, its extreme brevity edges into under-specification rather than ideal conciseness.
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 a destructive mutation tool with 9 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin. Annotations carry the safety profile, but the description fails to identify which fields are mutable or any parameter semantics, leaving too much for the agent to infer.
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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate for meaning. It says only 'mutable fields' without listing which fields are mutable, their formats, or the status enum values. An agent cannot tell from the description alone what each parameter does or what values are acceptable.
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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('consulting engagement') with a scope qualifier ('owned'), distinguishing it from create/get/list siblings by action. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the purpose itself is clear and unambiguous.
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 only usage hint is the word 'owned', implying a precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no when-not-to-use conditions. An agent must infer that this is the tool for modifying an engagement it owns.
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.