update_marketing_audienceUpdate fields on one owned audience definition. No delete is exposed over MCP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| channels | No | ||
| audience_id | Yes | Full UUID from the matching list tool. | |
| description | No | ||
| pain_points | 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?
Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness. Description adds 'No delete' note but no other behavioral traits.
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 concise sentences, no fluff. First sentence states primary action, second adds a relevant constraint.
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 5 parameters and low schema coverage, description omits parameter details and return behavior. Despite output schema existing, mutation tool needs more context on side effects.
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 coverage is only 20% (audience_id described). Description does not explain the other 4 parameters (name, channels, description, pain_points) beyond stating they are fields to update.
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?
Clear verb ('update'), specific resource ('marketing audience'), and scope ('one owned audience definition'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like create and get.
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?
Implies use on existing audiences; notes 'No delete is exposed' as a constraint. Lacks explicit prerequisites or when-not-to-use, but context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.