update_resumeentriesFull update (PUT) of a resume entry — every writable field required. Requires the company_id path parameter and the entry id. Prefer the partial-update tool for small edits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| kwargs | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context that it is a PUT operation requiring every writable field, which is valuable for understanding the update semantics. No contradiction with annotations.
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 concise and front-loaded, stating the full update nature in the first clause. It uses two sentences to convey the operation, requirements, and alternative, with no filler or redundant information.
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 tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: update semantics, required parameters, and guidance for alternatives. It could mention the return value or success behavior, but such information is often implied for CRUD operations and is not critical here.
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?
The schema provides descriptive explanations for both parameters (company_id and pk). The description reinforces the need for company_id and 'entry id', but incorrectly labels company_id as a 'path parameter' when the schema places it in the body. This minor inaccuracy slightly reduces clarity, but the schema's own descriptions prevent significant ambiguity.
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 clearly states it is a 'Full update (PUT) of a resume entry', specifying the verb, resource, and HTTP method. It differentiates from sibling partial_update_resumeentries by explicitly mentioning that all writable fields are required and recommending the partial-update tool for small edits.
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 description provides clear guidance on prerequisites ('Requires the `company_id` path parameter and the entry id') and advises when not to use it ('Prefer the partial-update tool for small edits'). However, it does not elaborate on scenarios where this full update is necessary beyond small edits, but the distinction is sufficient.
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.
Most tools are clearly scoped to a specific resource and action, but a few near-overlapping pairs (e.g., list_attachments vs list_taskattachments, create_tasktags vs add_tag_tasks) could cause misselection without close reading. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity.
The dominant verb_noun CRUD pattern (create_, list_, retrieve_, update_, partial_update_, destroy_) is consistent and predictable. However, non-standard pluralizations (companys, resumeentrys, taskdependencys) and a handful of irregular names (task_assign_user, move_relate_to_tasks) introduce minor inconsistencies.
With 83 tools, this server is far beyond a well-scoped MCP surface, even for a feature-complete project management suite. The sheer volume will overwhelm agents and make selection inefficient, clearly falling into the extreme-mismatch range.
The toolset provides thorough lifecycle coverage across companies, projects, tasks, sprints, attachments, comments, dependencies, tags, reminders, resume entries, tickets, and users. Missing operations like company deletion or task-attachment creation appear intentional and are worked around via existing tools.