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 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It states the update nature, but lacks details like ownership requirements, side effects, or field mutability restrictions.
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 (one sentence) but at the cost of completeness. It is front-loaded with the action verb but lacks structure to convey necessary detail.
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 complexity of the input schema (9 parameters) and lack of parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify return values or behavioral context, despite an output schema existing.
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%, and the description does not explain the purpose or constraints of any of the 9 parameters. The agent receives no guidance on parameter usage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('consulting engagement'), with qualifiers 'mutable fields' and 'owned' that help distinguish from read or create operations. However, it does not fully differentiate from sibling update tools for other resources.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_consulting_client or other engagement tools. No prerequisites or scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.