resources_update_allocationUpdate a manual (non-project) resource allocation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| allocation_id | Yes | ||
| allocated_hours | No | ||
| activity_type_id | No | ||
| allocated_capacity | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description must explain behavioral effects of updating an allocation. It only says 'update' without disclosing whether changes are partial or full replacement, what fields are affected, whether existing assigned hours/capacity are overwritten, or whether any validation or side effects apply.
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 one short sentence, so it is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified: it earns brevity but at the cost of omitting almost all useful guidance.
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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete. It gives minimal orientation but not enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, especially regarding which fields are updatable and how the update behaves.
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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters, but it names none of the seven parameters. The agent cannot tell which fields are updatable, how start_date/end_date interact, or what allocated_hours vs allocated_capacity means.
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 and resource: 'Update a manual (non-project) resource allocation.' This is clear about what the tool does and differentiates manual allocations from project allocations, but it does not mention siblings by name or detail the scope of what can be updated.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as resources_create_allocation or resources_delete_allocation. It only clarifies the resource type ('manual (non-project)'), leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit conditions or exclusions.
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 follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.
The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.
With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.
The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.